↓ Skip to main content

Mining online e-liquid reviews for opinion polarities about e-liquid features

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Mining online e-liquid reviews for opinion polarities about e-liquid features
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4533-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhipeng Chen, Daniel D. Zeng

Abstract

In recent years, the emerging electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) marketplace has developed prosperously all over the world. By analyzing online e-liquid reviews, we seek to identify the features attracting users. We collected e-liquid reviews from one of the largest online e-liquid review websites and extracted the e-liquid features by keywords. Then we used sentiment analysis to classify the features into two polarities: positive and negative. The positive sentiment ratio of a feature reflects the e-cigarette users' preference on this feature. The popularity and preference of e-liquid features are not correlated. Nuts and cream are the favorite flavor categories, while fruit and cream are the most popular categories. The top mixed flavors are preferable to single flavors. Fruit and cream categories are most frequently mixed with other flavors. E-cigarette users are satisfied with cloud production, but not satisfied with the ingredients and throat hit. We identified the flavors that e-cigarette users were satisfied with, and we found the users liked e-cigarette cloud production. Therefore, flavors and cloud production are potential factors attracting new users.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Psychology 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 13 36%

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 09 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,845,661
of 11,442,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,557
of 7,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,762
of 259,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#124
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,442,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,844 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 259,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.