↓ Skip to main content

Letter to the editor - round table unites to tackle culture change in an effort to improve animal research reporting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, November 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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Letter to the editor - round table unites to tackle culture change in an effort to improve animal research reporting
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12917-017-1235-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola J. Osborne, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Amrita Ahluwahlia, Sabina Alam, Matthew Brown, Hayley Henderson, Wim de Leeuw, Joan Marsh, David Moher, Erica van Oort, Frances Rawle, Beat M. Riederer, Jose Sanchez-Morgado, Emily S. Sena, Caroline Struthers, Matthew Westmore, Marc T. Avey, Rony Kalman, Annette O’Connor, Jan Sargeant, Anja Petrie, Adrian Smith

Abstract

A round table discussion was held during the LAVA-ESLAV-ECLAM conference on Reproducibility of Animal Studies on the 25th of September 2017 in Edinburgh. The aim of the round table was to discuss how to enhance the rate at which the quality of reporting animal research can be improved. This signed statement acknowledges the efforts that participant organizations have made towards improving the reporting of animal studies and confirms an ongoing commitment to drive further improvements, calling upon both academics and laboratory animal veterinarians to help make this cultural change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Professor 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 28%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,962,903
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#111
of 3,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,585
of 337,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#6
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 337,975 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 94% of its contemporaries.