↓ Skip to main content

Innovative training networks: overview of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie PhD training model

Overview of attention for article published in FEMS Microbiology Letters, August 2018
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Innovative training networks: overview of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie PhD training model
Published in
FEMS Microbiology Letters, August 2018
DOI 10.1093/femsle/fny207
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Doonan, Lucy Taylor, Paola Branduardi, John P Morrissey

Abstract

Doctoral training has changed in recent years with most PhDs now performed in structured programmes operated by university graduate schools. These schools generally superimpose a training framework onto the traditional research project to improve the education experience of the students and to prepare them for their careers. Many graduates progress to the commercial sector, where there is demand for highly skilled employees. The European Union (EU) promotes the development of transnational, training-focused, PhD programmes called Innovative Training Networks (ITNs) through Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. ITNs share many features of thematic PhD programmes, but they only recruit a single cohort of students, and they align with EU policy goals. These training networks are prestigious and very well regarded within European academia. The authors of this article were participants in a yeast biotechnology ITN, YEASTCELL, which finished in 2017. Some interesting insights into the more and less successful aspects of the project arose during discussions at the final project workshop. The views of the participants are distilled here in a discussion of how an ITN could be structured to maximise the benefits for the three main stakeholders: students, supervisors and industry partners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 6 17%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 14%
Psychology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 14 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,792,420
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#216
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,823
of 342,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#6
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 5,773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 342,634 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.