↓ Skip to main content

Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Malički, Ana Jerončić, Matko Marušić, Ana Marušić

Abstract

To assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question "Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?".

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Professor 4 14%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 8 28%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Computer Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 April 2013.
All research outputs
#1,975,665
of 4,508,238 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#293
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,742
of 283,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,508,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 550 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 283,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.