↓ Skip to main content

Big data, open science and the brain: lessons learned from genomics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
56 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Big data, open science and the brain: lessons learned from genomics
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00239
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suparna Choudhury, Jennifer R. Fishman, Michelle L. McGowan, Eric T. Juengst

Abstract

The BRAIN Initiative aims to break new ground in the scale and speed of data collection in neuroscience, requiring tools to handle data in the magnitude of yottabytes (10(24)). The scale, investment and organization of it are being compared to the Human Genome Project (HGP), which has exemplified "big science" for biology. In line with the trend towards Big Data in genomic research, the promise of the BRAIN Initiative, as well as the European Human Brain Project, rests on the possibility to amass vast quantities of data to model the complex interactions between the brain and behavior and inform the diagnosis and prevention of neurological disorders and psychiatric disease. Advocates of this "data driven" paradigm in neuroscience argue that harnessing the large quantities of data generated across laboratories worldwide has numerous methodological, ethical and economic advantages, but it requires the neuroscience community to adopt a culture of data sharing and open access to benefit from them. In this article, we examine the rationale for data sharing among advocates and briefly exemplify these in terms of new "open neuroscience" projects. Then, drawing on the frequently invoked model of data sharing in genomics, we go on to demonstrate the complexities of data sharing, shedding light on the sociological and ethical challenges within the realms of institutions, researchers and participants, namely dilemmas around public/private interests in data, (lack of) motivation to share in the academic community, and potential loss of participant anonymity. Our paper serves to highlight some foreseeable tensions around data sharing relevant to the emergent "open neuroscience" movement.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Spain 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 209 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 19%
Researcher 42 18%
Student > Master 39 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 5%
Other 50 21%
Unknown 28 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 28 12%
Computer Science 25 11%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 9%
Psychology 20 9%
Other 69 29%
Unknown 47 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 11 July 2024.
All research outputs
#617,789
of 26,480,347 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#268
of 7,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,262
of 242,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#11
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,480,347 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 7,840 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 242,965 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 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 95% of its contemporaries.