↓ Skip to main content

Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability

Overview of attention for article published in Genome Medicine, January 2014
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Data sharing policy design for consortia: challenges for sustainability
Published in
Genome Medicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/gm523
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Kaye, Naomi Hawkins

Abstract

The field of human genomics has led advances in the sharing of data with a view to facilitating translation of research into innovations for human health. This change in scientific practice has been implemented through new policy developed by many principal investigators, project managers and funders, which has ultimately led to new forms of practice and innovative governance models for data sharing. Here, we examine the development of the governance of data sharing in genomics, and explore some of the key challenges associated with the design and implementation of these policies. We examine how the incremental nature of policy design, the perennial problem of consent, the gridlock caused by multiple and overlapping access systems, the administrative burden and the problems with incentives and acknowledgment all have an impact on the potential for data sharing to be maximized. We conclude by proposing ways in which the scientific community can address these problems, to improve the sustainability of data sharing into the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 19%
Student > Master 11 19%
Professor 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 15 26%
Computer Science 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 14 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,388,314
of 20,792,815 outputs
Outputs from Genome Medicine
#551
of 1,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,908
of 205,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Medicine
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,792,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 205,972 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 16 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.