↓ Skip to main content

How to choose the best journal for your case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
How to choose the best journal for your case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1351-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard A. Rison, Jennifer Kelly Shepphird, Michael R. Kidd

Abstract

Since the establishment of the Journal of Medical Case Reports in 2006, the number of journals that publish case reports has increased rapidly, and most of these journals are open access. Open access publishing usually requires authors to pay publication fees while offering the articles online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. The movement for open access has gained support in the research community, with the publishers BioMed Central and PLOS ONE becoming leaders in scientific publishing in their number of articles and citations. As the number of open access publishers has exploded, so too has the number of publishers that act in bad faith to profit from the open access model. Simple guidelines have been developed and resources are available to help authors choose a suitable journal for publication of their case reports.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 18%
Other 34 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Master 13 6%
Other 50 24%
Unknown 42 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 65 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#1,709,216
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#119
of 4,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,343
of 321,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 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 4,544 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 321,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.