Research data management in clinical neuroscience: The national research data infrastructure initiative
Neuroforum, ISSN: 2363-7013, Vol: 27, Issue: 1, Page: 35-43
2021
- 1Citations
- 20Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
In clinical neuroscience, there are considerable difficulties in translating basic research into clinical applications such as diagnostic tools or therapeutic interventions. This gap, known as the “valley of death,” was mainly attributed to the problem of “small numbers” in clinical neuroscience research, i.e. sample sizes that are too small (Hutson et al., 2017). As a possible solution, it has been repeatedly suggested to systematically manage research data to provide long-term storage, accessibility, and federate data. This goal is supported by a current call of the DFG for a national research data infrastructure (NFDI). This article will review current challenges and possible solutions specific to clinical neuroscience and discuss them in the context of other national and international health data initiatives. A successful NFDI consortium will help to overcome not only the “valley of death” but also promises a path to individualized medicine by enabling big data to produce generalizable results based on artificial intelligence and other methods.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85100014185&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nf-2020-0039; https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nf-2020-0039/html; https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/nf/ahead-of-print/article-10.1515-nf-2020-0039/article-10.1515-nf-2020-0039.xml; https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nf-2020-0039/xml; https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nf-2020-0039
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know