| Title |
Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-8-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Schroter, Trish Groves, Liselotte Højgaard |
| Abstract |
The objectives of this research were (a) to describe the current status of grant review for biomedical projects and programmes from the perspectives of international funding organisations and grant reviewers, and (b) to explore funders' interest in developing uniform requirements for grant review aimed at making the processes and practices of grant review more consistent, transparent, and user friendly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 41 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 19% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Psychology | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 13 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,646,038
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,161
of 3,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,019
of 99,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 99,483 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.