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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
What incentives increase data sharing in health and medical research? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anisa Rowhani-Farid, Michelle Allen, Adrian G. Barnett |
| Abstract |
The foundation of health and medical research is data. Data sharing facilitates the progress of research and strengthens science. Data sharing in research is widely discussed in the literature; however, there are seemingly no evidence-based incentives that promote data sharing. A systematic review (registration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6PZ5E) of the health and medical research literature was used to uncover any evidence-based incentives, with pre- and post-empirical data that examined data sharing rates. We were also interested in quantifying and classifying the number of opinion pieces on the importance of incentives, the number observational studies that analysed data sharing rates and practices, and strategies aimed at increasing data sharing rates. Only one incentive (using open data badges) has been tested in health and medical research that examined data sharing rates. The number of opinion pieces (n = 85) out-weighed the number of article-testing strategies (n = 76), and the number of observational studies exceeded them both (n = 106). Given that data is the foundation of evidence-based health and medical research, it is paradoxical that there is only one evidence-based incentive to promote data sharing. More well-designed studies are needed in order to increase the currently low rates of data sharing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 States | 13 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 15% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 4% |
| Belgium | 3 | 4% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 55 | 70% |
| Scientists | 15 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 17% |
| Researcher | 24 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Librarian | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 10% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 34 | 25% |
| Unknown | 37 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. 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 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#455,243
of 25,162,879 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#19
of 130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,423
of 316,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,162,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 74.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 316,701 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.