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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Journal Impact Factor is under attack – use the CAPCI factor instead
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0773-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eleftherios P. Diamandis |
| Abstract |
The uses and misuses of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) have been thoroughly discussed in the literature. A few years ago, I predicted that JIF would soon be replaced, while another colleague argued the opposite. Over the past few months, attacks on JIF have intensified, with some publishing organizations gradually removing the indicator from their journals' websites. Here, I argue that most, if not all of the misuses of JIF are related to its name. The word "impact" should be removed, since it implies an influential attribute, either for the journals, their published papers, or their authors. I propose instead the use of a new name, the "CAPCI factor", standing for Citation Average Per Citable Item, which accurately describes what is represented by this measure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Germany | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 14 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,551,580
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,091
of 3,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,159
of 418,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#22
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 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 3,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 418,819 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.