↓ Skip to main content

The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 9%
Spain 3 3%
Germany 3 3%
Australia 3 3%
Belgium 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 75 63%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Librarian 13 11%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor 11 9%
Other 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 30 25%
Social Sciences 22 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Psychology 6 5%
Other 28 23%

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 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#854,213
of 13,516,039 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#123
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,983
of 121,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 121,355 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 94% 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