| Title |
Roots, Not Parachutes: Research Collaborations Combat Outbreaks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.029 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nathan L. Yozwiak, Christian T. Happi, Donald S. Grant, John S. Schieffelin, Robert F. Garry, Pardis C. Sabeti, Kristian G. Andersen |
| Abstract |
Recent infectious disease epidemics illustrate how health systems failures anywhere can create disease vulnerabilities everywhere. We must therefore prioritize investments in health care infrastructure in outbreak-prone regions of the world. We describe how "rooted" research collaborations can establish capacity for pathogen surveillance and facilitate rapid outbreak responses. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 | 21 | 41% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 10% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 61% |
| Scientists | 13 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 05 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,069,480
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Cell
#3,968
of 17,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,647
of 354,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell
#86
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 354,767 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.