↓ Skip to main content

Bridging the Divide between Science and Journalism

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, March 2010
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 (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Bridging the Divide between Science and Journalism
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, March 2010
DOI 10.1186/1479-5876-8-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Van Eperen, Francesco M Marincola, Jennifer Strohm

Abstract

There are countless reasons nearly every scientist should learn how to communicate effectively with the media, including increased understanding of critical research findings to attract or sustain funding and build new professional partnerships that will further propel forward research. But where do scientists begin? Bridging the Divide between Science and Journalism offers practical tips for any scientist looking to work with the media.Given the traditional and internet-based sources for medical research and healthcare-related news now available, it is imperative that scientists know how to communicate their latest findings through the appropriate channels. The credible media channels are managed by working journalists, so learning how to package vast, technical research in a form that is appetizing and "bite-sized" in order to get their attention, is an art. Reducing years of research into a headline can be extremely difficult and certainly doesn't come naturally to every scientist, so this article provides suggestions on how to work with the media to communicate your findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 31 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,344,067
of 24,532,617 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#242
of 4,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,416
of 97,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,532,617 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 97,276 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.