↓ Skip to main content

The "impact factor" revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Biomedical Digital Libraries, December 2005
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
1 tweeter


170 Dimensions

Readers on

265 Mendeley
23 CiteULike
6 Connotea
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.
The "impact factor" revisited
Published in
Biomedical Digital Libraries, December 2005
DOI 10.1186/1742-5581-2-7
Pubmed ID

Peng Dong, Marie Loh, Adrian Mondry


The number of scientific journals has become so large that individuals, institutions and institutional libraries cannot completely store their physical content. In order to prioritize the choice of quality information sources, librarians and scientists are in need of reliable decision aids. The "impact factor" (IF) is the most commonly used assessment aid for deciding which journals should receive a scholarly submission or attention from research readership. It is also an often misunderstood tool. This narrative review explains how the IF is calculated, how bias is introduced into the calculation, which questions the IF can or cannot answer, and how different professional groups can benefit from IF use.

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 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 8 3%
Germany 7 3%
Sweden 5 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Brazil 3 1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Malaysia 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 218 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 55 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Professor 37 14%
Student > Master 29 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 23 9%
Other 70 26%
Unknown 13 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 17%
Social Sciences 32 12%
Computer Science 20 8%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 76 29%
Unknown 21 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Digital Libraries
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 112,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Digital Libraries
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one scored the same or higher as 9 of them.
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 112,897 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them