↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

Article Metrics

The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,820)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
32 news outlets
blogs
23 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
475 tweeters
facebook
18 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
521 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
599 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research
Published in
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, December 2011
DOI 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoë Slote Morris, Steven Wooding, Jonathan Grant

Abstract

This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively 'blindfolds' investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 475 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 599 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 11 2%
United States 10 2%
Canada 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 561 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 108 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 103 17%
Student > Master 101 17%
Other 64 11%
Student > Bachelor 50 8%
Other 172 29%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 207 35%
Unspecified 79 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 9%
Social Sciences 49 8%
Psychology 44 7%
Other 164 27%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 693. 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 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,756
of 12,975,561 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#8
of 1,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51
of 129,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,975,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 129,342 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.