| Title |
The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of General Medicine, August 2010
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijgm.s11117 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cath Holliday, Monica Robotin |
| Abstract |
Traditional scientific review processes are not well suited for evaluating the merits of research in situations where the available scientific evidence is limited and if review panels have widely divergent opinions. This study tested whether a Delphi process is useful in grant selection. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 36% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 21% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 29% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
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 31 March 2023.
All research outputs
#16,045,990
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#597
of 1,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,165
of 103,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 103,874 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.