| Title |
Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0305-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D.J. Pennell, A.J. Baksi, S.K. Prasad, R.H. Mohiaddin, F. Alpendurada, S.V. Babu-Narayan, J.E. Schneider, D.N. Firmin |
| Abstract |
There were 116 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2015, which is a 14 % increase on the 102 articles published in 2014. The quality of the submissions continues to increase. The 2015 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2016) rose to 5.75 from 4.72 for 2014 (as published in June 2015), which is the highest impact factor ever recorded for JCMR. The 2015 impact factor means that the JCMR papers that were published in 2013 and 2014 were cited on average 5.75 times in 2015. The impact factor undergoes natural variation according to citation rates of papers in the 2 years following publication, and is significantly influenced by highly cited papers such as official reports. However, the progress of the journal's impact over the last 5 years has been impressive. Our acceptance rate is <25 % and has been falling because the number of articles being submitted has been increasing. In accordance with Open-Access publishing, the JCMR articles go on-line as they are accepted with no collating of the articles into sections or special thematic issues. For this reason, the Editors have felt that it is useful once per calendar year to summarize the papers for the readership into broad areas of interest or theme, so that areas of interest can be reviewed in a single article in relation to each other and other recent JCMR articles. The papers are presented in broad themes and set in context with related literature and previously published JCMR papers to guide continuity of thought in the journal. We hope that you find the open-access system increases wider reading and citation of your papers, and that you will continue to send your quality papers to JCMR for publication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 63 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 40% |
| Engineering | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,765,716
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#887
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,917
of 312,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 312,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.