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 |
The IRB structure and medical research reform
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, April 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40169-018-0188-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Julie Babyar |
Abstract |
Optimal Independent Review Board (IRB) structure encompasses ongoing process improvement, ethics policies and continuous relationship building, all sound in evidence. With optimal IRB structure, a global research infrastructure will flourish. Evidence for IRB structure must be detailed and expert operational recommendations should guide. Too, health service research oversight should assist in funding as well as collaboration. A national and international research agenda will only benefit from best operations, guided in evidence, supported in best regulatory and research leadership practice. It is imperative that the IRB structure be reformed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 2 | 22% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
Other | 1 | 11% |
Researcher | 1 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 22% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 11% |
Engineering | 1 | 11% |
Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,479,843
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#370
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,434
of 342,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 342,742 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.