↓ Skip to main content

Scientific Collaborations: How Do We Measure the Return on Relationships?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Scientific Collaborations: How Do We Measure the Return on Relationships?
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeanne M. Fair, Martha Mangum Stokes, Deana Pennington, Ian H. Mendenhall

Abstract

Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs), the majority of which are zoonotic, represent a tremendous challenge for public health and biosurveillance infrastructure across the globe. Due to the complexity of zoonotic pathogens, it is essential that research and response to EIDs be a transdisciplinary effort. And while crisis and circumstance may be the initial catalyst for responding to an outbreak, we provide examples of how transdisciplinary scientific collectives, which are organized and solidified in advance of crises, can transform the way the world responds to outbreaks and in some cases could even prevent one from occurring (1). Current methods for assessing whether a cooperative engagement between countries is producing measurable and sustainable value is based on the ideas of return on investment and do not consider the inherent importance of relationships. In this article, we apply the idea of return on relationships (ROR) and propose a method for measuring ROR, using a system dynamics modeling framework commonly used in epidemiology. Tracking the numerous and diverse scientific collaborations that emerged from a training workshop for biosurveillance of bats held in Singapore in 2014, we apply a methodology for visualizing and measuring the relationship networks and outcomes that result. Additionally, the collaborative, multidisciplinary network that coalesced in response to the Hantavirus outbreak in New Mexico is 1993 is discussed as an example of the long-term benefits of ROR.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,458,480
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#3,094
of 9,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,379
of 403,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#38
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 403,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.