↓ Skip to main content

Data management challenges in analysis and synthesis in the ecosystem sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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 management challenges in analysis and synthesis in the ecosystem sciences
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.092
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Specht, S. Guru, L. Houghton, L. Keniger, P. Driver, E.G. Ritchie, K. Lai, A. Treloar

Abstract

Open-data has created an unprecedented opportunity with new challenges for ecosystem scientists. Skills in data management are essential to acquire, manage, publish, access and re-use data. These skills span many disciplines and require trans-disciplinary collaboration. Science synthesis centres support analysis and synthesis through collaborative 'Working Groups' where domain specialists work together to synthesise existing information to provide insight into critical problems. The Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS) served a wide range of stakeholders, from scientists to policy-makers to managers. This paper investigates the level of sophistication in data management in the ecosystem science community through the lens of the ACEAS experience, and identifies the important factors required to enable us to benefit from this new data-world and produce innovative science. ACEAS promoted the analysis and synthesis of data to solve transdisciplinary questions, and promoted the publication of the synthesised data. To do so, it provided support in many of the key skillsets required. Analysis and synthesis in multi-disciplinary and multi-organisational teams, and publishing data were new for most. Data were difficult to discover and access, and to make ready for analysis, largely due to lack of metadata. Data use and publication were hampered by concerns about data ownership and a desire for data citation. A web portal was created to visualise geospatial datasets to maximise data interpretation. By the end of the experience there was a significant increase in appreciation of the importance of a Data Management Plan. It is extremely doubtful that the work would have occurred or data delivered without the support of the Synthesis centre, as few of the participants had the necessary networks or skills. It is argued that participation in the Centre provided an important learning opportunity, and has resulted in improved knowledge and understanding of good data management practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Australia 3 2%
Switzerland 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 120 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 18%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 16 12%
Other 14 11%
Librarian 12 9%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 19%
Environmental Science 24 18%
Computer Science 15 11%
Engineering 12 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 8%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 18 14%

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 11 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,163,412
of 16,920,965 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#1,039
of 16,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,954
of 233,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#13
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,920,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 233,896 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.