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 |
In support of descriptive studies; relevance to translational research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1479-5876-5-21 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco M Marincola |
| Abstract |
The contemporary scientific establishment equates hypothesis testing to good science. This stance bypasses the preliminary need to identify a worthwhile hypothesis through rigorous observation of natural processes. If alleviation of human suffering is claimed as the goal of a scientific undertaking, it would be unfair to test a hypothesis whose relevance to human disease has not been satisfactorily proven. Here, we argue that descriptive investigations based on direct human observation should be highly valued and regarded essential for the selection of worthwhile hypotheses while the pursuit of costly scientific investigations without such evidence is a desecration of the cause upon which biomedical research is grounded. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 36 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 27% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,302,478
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,232
of 3,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,379
of 72,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 72,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.