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 |
Problems on the back of an envelope
|
---|---|
Published in |
eLife, September 2016
|
DOI | 10.7554/elife.19569 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Polina Anikeeva, Alan Jasanoff |
Abstract |
Claims that magnetic fields can be used to manipulate biological systems contradict some basic laws of physics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
Mexico | 1 | 5% |
France | 1 | 5% |
Brazil | 1 | 5% |
Spain | 1 | 5% |
Japan | 1 | 5% |
Costa Rica | 1 | 5% |
Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
Other | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 5 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 11 | 55% |
Members of the public | 7 | 35% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 13 | 32% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
Professor | 3 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 10% |
Unknown | 7 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 17% |
Neuroscience | 7 | 17% |
Engineering | 6 | 15% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 12% |
Chemistry | 4 | 10% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 11 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 19 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,341,830
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from eLife
#4,050
of 15,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,902
of 343,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from eLife
#82
of 335 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 15,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 343,855 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 335 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.