↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

From ideas to studies: how to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 803)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
95 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 Mendeley
Title
From ideas to studies: how to get ideas and sharpen them into research questions
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/clep.s142940
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan P Vandenbroucke, Neil Pearce

Abstract

Where do new research questions come from? This is at best only partially taught in courses or textbooks about clinical or epidemiological research. Methods are taught under the assumption that a researcher already knows the research question and knows which methods will fit that question. Similarly, the real complexity of the thought processes that lead to a scientific undertaking is almost never described in published papers. In this paper, we first discuss how to get an idea that is worth researching. We describe sources of new ideas and how to foster a creative attitude by "cultivating your thoughts". Only a few of these ideas will make it into a study. Next, we describe how to sharpen and focus a research question so that a study becomes feasible and a valid test of the underlying idea. To do this, the idea needs to be "pruned". Pruning a research question means cutting away anything that is unnecessary, so that only the essence remains. This includes determining both the latent and the stated objectives, specific pruning questions, and the use of specific schemes to structure reasoning. After this, the following steps include preparation of a brief protocol, conduct of a pilot study, and writing a draft of the paper including draft tables. Then you are ready to carry out your research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 359 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 19%
Researcher 50 14%
Student > Master 42 12%
Other 24 7%
Student > Bachelor 23 6%
Other 89 25%
Unknown 64 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 23%
Social Sciences 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 6%
Environmental Science 18 5%
Psychology 18 5%
Other 92 26%
Unknown 88 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 07 September 2023.
All research outputs
#600,395
of 25,844,815 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#24
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,562
of 346,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,844,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 346,128 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.