↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Enhancing research publications and advancing scientific writing in health research collaborations: sharing lessons learnt from the trenches

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Enhancing research publications and advancing scientific writing in health research collaborations: sharing lessons learnt from the trenches
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s152681
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guowei Li, Yanling Jin, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Lisa Dolovich, Jonathan D Adachi, Mitchell AH Levine, Deborah Cook, Zainab Samaan, Lehana Thabane

Abstract

Disseminating research protocols, processes, methods or findings via peer-reviewed publications has substantive merits and benefits to various stakeholders. In this article, we share strategies to enhance research publication contents (ie, what to write about) and to facilitate scientific writing (ie, how to write) in health research collaborations. Empirical experience sharing. To enhance research publication contents, we encourage identifying appropriate opportunities for publications, publishing protocols ahead of results papers, seeking publications related to methodological issues, considering justified secondary analyses, and sharing academic process or experience. To advance writing, we suggest setting up scientific writing as a goal, seeking an appropriate mentorship, making full use of scientific meetings and presentations, taking some necessary formal training in areas such as effective communication and time and stress management, and embracing the iterative process of writing. All the strategies we share are dependent upon each other; and they advocate gradual academic accomplishments through study and training in a "success-breeds-success" way. It is expected that the foregoing shared strategies in this paper, together with other previous guidance articles, can assist one with enhancing research publications, and eventually one's academic success in health research collaborations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 5 9%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 14 26%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 19 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,513,418
of 23,055,429 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#514
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,887
of 326,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,055,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 326,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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.