↓ Skip to main content

Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 7,645)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
131 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Use and mis-use of supplementary material in science publications
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0668-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mihai Pop, Steven L. Salzberg

Abstract

Supplementary material is a ubiquitous feature of scientific articles, particularly in journals that limit the length of the articles. While the judicious use of supplementary material can improve the readability of scientific articles, its excessive use threatens the scientific review process and by extension the integrity of the scientific literature. In many cases supplementary material today is so extensive that it is reviewed superficially or not at all. Furthermore, citations buried within supplementary files rob other scientists of recognition of their contribution to the scientific record. These issues are exacerbated by the lack of guidance on the use of supplementary information from the journals to authors and reviewers. We propose that the removal of artificial length restrictions plus the use of interactive features made possible by modern electronic media can help to alleviate these problems. Many journals, in fact, have already removed article length limitations (as is the case for BMC Bioinformatics and other BioMed Central journals). We hope that the issues raised in our article will encourage publishers and scientists to work together towards a better use of supplementary information in scientific publishing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 131 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Portugal 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 120 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 22%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Computer Science 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Chemistry 6 5%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 30 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. 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 June 2023.
All research outputs
#397,837
of 25,083,571 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#11
of 7,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,792
of 291,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#1
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,083,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 291,522 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 99% of its contemporaries.