↓ Skip to main content

Improving the odds through the Collaboration Success Wizard

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Improving the odds through the Collaboration Success Wizard
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13142-012-0174-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J Bietz, Steve Abrams, Dan M Cooper, Kathleen R Stevens, Frank Puga, Darpan I Patel, Gary M Olson, Judith S Olson

Abstract

Collaboration has become a dominant mode of scientific inquiry, and good collaborative processes are important for ensuring scientific quality and productivity. Often the participants in these collaborations are not collocated, yet distance introduces challenges. There remains a need for evaluative tools that can identify potential collaboration problems early and provide strategies for managing and addressing collaboration issues. This paper introduces a new research and diagnostic tool, the Collaboration Success Wizard (CSW), and provides two case studies of its use in evaluating ongoing collaborative projects in the health sciences. The CSW is designed both to validate and refine existing theory about the factors that encourage successful collaboration and to promote good collaborative practices in geographically distributed team-based scientific projects. These cases demonstrate that the CSW can promote reflection and positive change in collaborative science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 25%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Psychology 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 10 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 04 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,711,967
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#247
of 988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,011
of 172,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 172,465 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.