↓ Skip to main content

Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 274 Quality in Non-GxP Research Environment
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 275 Guidelines and Initiatives for Good Research Practice
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 276 Learning from Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine to Optimize Nonclinical Research Practices
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 277 General Principles of Preclinical Study Design
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 278 Resolving the Tension Between Exploration and Confirmation in Preclinical Biomedical Research
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 279 Blinding and Randomization
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 280 Out of Control? Managing Baseline Variability in Experimental Studies with Control Groups
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 281 Quality of Research Tools
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 282 Genetic Background and Sex: Impact on Generalizability of Research Findings in Pharmacology Studies
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 284 Minimum Information and Quality Standards for Conducting, Reporting, and Organizing In Vitro Research.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 285 Minimum Information in In Vivo Research.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 286 A Reckless Guide to P-values
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 288 Data Storage
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 290 Publishers’ Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 291 Quality Governance in Biomedical Research
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 292 Good Research Practice: Lessons from Animal Care and Use
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 293 Research Collaborations and Quality in Research: Foes or Friends?
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 294 Costs of Implementing Quality in Research Practice
Attention for Chapter 284: Minimum Information and Quality Standards for Conducting, Reporting, and Organizing In Vitro Research.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
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.
Chapter title
Minimum Information and Quality Standards for Conducting, Reporting, and Organizing In Vitro Research.
Chapter number 284
Book title
Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, October 2019
DOI 10.1007/164_2019_284
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-03-033655-4, 978-3-03-033656-1
Authors

Christoph H. Emmerich, Christopher M. Harris

Abstract

Insufficient description of experimental practices can contribute to difficulties in reproducing research findings. In response to this, "minimum information" guidelines have been developed for different disciplines. These standards help ensure that the complete experiment is described, including both experimental protocols and data processing methods, allowing a critical evaluation of the whole process and the potential recreation of the work. Selected examples of minimum information checklists with relevance for in vitro research are presented here and are collected by and registered at the MIBBI/FAIRsharing Information Resource portal.In addition, to support integrative research and to allow for comparisons and data sharing across studies, ontologies and vocabularies need to be defined and integrated across areas of in vitro research. As examples, this chapter addresses ontologies for cells and bioassays and discusses their importance for in vitro studies.Finally, specific quality requirements for important in vitro research tools (like chemical probes, antibodies, and cell lines) are suggested, and remaining issues are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 7 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,516,266
of 21,800,360 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#114
of 633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,341
of 437,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,800,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 437,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 99% of its contemporaries.