↓ Skip to main content

The Snark was a Boojum - reloaded

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Zoology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
The Snark was a Boojum - reloaded
Published in
Frontiers in Zoology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/1742-9994-12-s1-s20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simone Macrì, S Helene Richter

Abstract

In this article, we refer to an original opinion paper written by Prof. Frank Beach in 1950 ("The Snark was a Boojum"). In his manuscript, Beach explicitly criticised the field of comparative psychology because of the disparity between the original understanding of comparativeness and its practical overly specialised implementation. Specialisation encompassed both experimental species (rats accounted for 70% of all subjects) and test paradigms (dominated by conditioning/learning experiments). Herein, we attempt to evaluate the extent to which these considerations apply to current behavioural neuroscience. Such evaluation is particularly interesting in the context of "translational research" that has recently gained growing attention. As a community, we believe that preclinical findings are intended to inform clinical practice at the level of therapies and knowledge advancements. Yet, limited reproducibility of experimental results and failures to translate preclinical research into clinical trial sindicate that these expectations are not entirely fulfilled. Theoretical considerations suggest that, before concluding that a given phenomenon is of relevance to our species, it should be observed in more than a single experimental model (be it an animal strain or species) and tested in more than a single standardized test battery. Yet, current approaches appear limited in terms of variability and overspecialised in terms of operative procedures. Specifically, as in 1950, rodents (mice instead of rats) still constitute the vast majority of animal species investigated. Additionally, the scientific community strives to homogenise experimental test strategies, thereby not only limiting the generalizability of the findings, but also working against the design of innovative approaches. Finally, we discuss the importance of evolutionary-adaptive considerations within the field of laboratory research. Specifically, resting upon empirical evidence indicating that developing individuals adjust their long-term phenotype according to early environmental demands, we propose that current rearing and housing standards do not adequately prepare experimental subjects to their actual adult environments. Specifically, while the adult life of a laboratory animal is characterized by frequent stimulations and challenges, the neonatal life is dominated by quietness and stability. We suggest that such form of mismatch may remarkably influence the reproducibility and reliability of experimental findings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 5%
Germany 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 37 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 39%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 24%
Psychology 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Zoology
#618
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,197
of 278,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Zoology
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 278,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.