↓ 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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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.
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?".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Professor 4 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Other 14 33%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 36%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Computer Science 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

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
#14,159,409
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,373
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,375
of 280,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 280,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.