↓ Skip to main content

Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: a multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: a multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers
Published in
SpringerPlus, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-3445-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia Werker, Ward Ooms, Marjolein C. J. Caniëls

Abstract

Previous studies investigating proximity and collaboration have not clarified personal elements, such as working or communication style. Here, we show that personal proximity-close similarity in terms of personal traits and behavioral patterns-substantially affects the whole life cycle of research collaborations. We conduct a multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers. We select our interviewees through a bibliometric analysis and focus on the most central Dutch nanotechnology researchers in the global network. Our results reveal that social proximity and temporary geographical proximity have indirect effects enabling potential partners to assess their personal proximity. Sufficient levels of personal proximity often make or break the deal, provided that partners' cognitive and organizational proximity-which are major drivers of research collaborations-suffice. Introducing personal proximity to analyze research collaborations puts previous findings on proximity dimensions' effect on collaboration in a new perspective.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 16 41%
Social Sciences 6 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 13%
Engineering 3 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,902,006
of 8,937,907 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#242
of 1,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,277
of 257,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#18
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,937,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,681 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 257,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.