| Title |
COVID-19: interpreting scientific evidence – uncertainty, confusion and delays
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-020-05387-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julian W Tang |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 | 5 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 16% |
| Australia | 3 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 16 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 77% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 13% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 32 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 35 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 27 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,143,654
of 25,810,956 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#264
of 8,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,580
of 428,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#8
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,810,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 428,067 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 158 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 94% of its contemporaries.