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 |
Negative results: negative perceptions limit their potential for increasing reproducibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12952-015-0033-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva |
| Abstract |
Negative results are an important building block in the development of scientific thought, primarily because most likely the vast majority of data is negative, i.e., there is not a favorable outcome. Only very limited data is positive, and that is what tends to get published, albeit alongside a sub-set of negative results to emphasize the positive nature of the positive results. Yet, not all negative results get published. Part of the problem lies with a traditional mind-set and rigid publishing frame-work that tends to view negative results in a negative light, or that only tends to reward scientists primarily for presenting positive findings. This opinion piece indicates that in addition to a deficient mind-set, there are also severe limitations in the availability of publishing channels where negative results could get published. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Spain | 2 | 10% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Peru | 1 | 5% |
| Poland | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 76% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 41% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 30 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,496,277
of 23,443,716 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#11
of 112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,712
of 263,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,443,716 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 263,671 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.