| Title |
Operational Experience of an Open-Access, Subscription-Based Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics Facility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13361-017-1862-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas A. Williamson |
| Abstract |
This paper discusses the successful adoption of a subscription-based, open-access model of service delivery for a mass spectrometry and proteomics facility. In 2009, the Mass Spectrometry and Proteomics Facility at the University of Melbourne (Australia) moved away from the standard fee for service model of service provision. Instead, the facility adopted a subscription- or membership-based, open-access model of service delivery. For a low fixed yearly cost, users could directly operate the instrumentation but, more importantly, there were no limits on usage other than the necessity to share available instrument time with all other users. All necessary training from platform staff and many of the base reagents were also provided as part of the membership cost. These changes proved to be very successful in terms of financial outcomes for the facility, instrument access and usage, and overall research output. This article describes the systems put in place as well as the overall successes and challenges associated with the operation of a mass spectrometry/proteomics core in this manner. Graphical abstract ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 36% |
| United States | 4 | 29% |
| China | 1 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 57% |
| Scientists | 5 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 35% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 23% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,557,890
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#109
of 3,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,165
of 450,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
#3
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,835 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.