↓ Skip to main content

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2016
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 (#2 of 1,128)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
3 blogs
1 policy source
350 tweeters
4 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
1 Google+ user
1 Redditor


83 Dimensions

Readers on

214 Mendeley
A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z
Pubmed ID

Pavel V. Ovseiko, Trisha Greenhalgh, Paula Adam, Jonathan Grant, Saba Hinrichs-Krapels, Kathryn E. Graham, Pamela A. Valentine, Omar Sued, Omar F. Boukhris, Nada M. Al Olaqi, Idrees S. Al Rahbi, Anne-Maree Dowd, Sara Bice, Tamika L. Heiden, Michael D. Fischer, Sue Dopson, Robyn Norton, Alexandra Pollitt, Steven Wooding, Gert V. Balling, Ulla Jakobsen, Ellen Kuhlmann, Ineke Klinge, Linda H. Pololi, Reshma Jagsi, Helen Lawton Smith, Henry Etzkowitz, Mathias W. Nielsen, Carme Carrion, Maite Solans‐Domènech, Esther Vizcaino, Lin Naing, Quentin H. N. Cheok, Baerbel Eckelmann, Moses C. Simuyemba, Temwa Msiska, Giovanna Declich, Laurel D. Edmunds, Vasiliki Kiparoglou, Alison M. J. Buchan, Catherine Williamson, Graham M. Lord, Keith M. Channon, Rebecca Surender, Alastair M. Buchan


Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 350 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 205 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 45 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Student > Master 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 53 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 22%
Social Sciences 43 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 57 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 256. 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 20 September 2021.
All research outputs
of 21,295,635 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 1,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 280,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,295,635 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 1,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. 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 280,255 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them