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 |
Co-authorship network analysis in health research: method and potential use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Health Research Policy and Systems, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12961-016-0104-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruna de Paula Fonseca e Fonseca, Ricardo Barros Sampaio, Marcus Vinicius de Araújo Fonseca, Fabio Zicker |
| Abstract |
Scientific collaboration networks are a hallmark of contemporary academic research. Researchers are no longer independent players, but members of teams that bring together complementary skills and multidisciplinary approaches around common goals. Social network analysis and co-authorship networks are increasingly used as powerful tools to assess collaboration trends and to identify leading scientists and organizations. The analysis reveals the social structure of the networks by identifying actors and their connections. This article reviews the method and potential applications of co-authorship network analysis in health. The basic steps for conducting co-authorship studies in health research are described and common network metrics are presented. The application of the method is exemplified by an overview of the global research network for Chikungunya virus vaccines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 380 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 377 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 11% |
| Researcher | 39 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 20 | 5% |
| Other | 103 | 27% |
| Unknown | 120 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 41 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 31 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 29 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 5% |
| Other | 98 | 26% |
| Unknown | 137 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,302,030
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#744
of 1,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,283
of 298,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#14
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 298,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.