Title |
The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2004
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-4-14 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Andy R Weale, Mick Bailey, Paul A Lear |
Abstract |
Current methods of measuring the quality of journals assume that citations of articles within journals are normally distributed. Furthermore using journal impact factors to measure the quality of individual articles is flawed if citations are not uniformly spread between articles. The aim of this study was to assess the distribution of citations to articles and use the level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality. This ranking method is compared with the impact factor, as calculated by ISI(R). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 2 | 40% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Germany | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 11 | 7% |
Germany | 3 | 2% |
Spain | 3 | 2% |
Australia | 3 | 2% |
Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
Belgium | 2 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
Canada | 2 | 1% |
Brazil | 2 | 1% |
Other | 12 | 8% |
Unknown | 105 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 27 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 15% |
Student > Master | 16 | 11% |
Professor | 16 | 11% |
Librarian | 14 | 10% |
Other | 44 | 30% |
Unknown | 8 | 5% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Computer Science | 31 | 21% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 24 | 16% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 10% |
Psychology | 7 | 5% |
Other | 32 | 22% |
Unknown | 13 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,813,002
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#236
of 2,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,338
of 60,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 60,383 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.