| Title |
Letter to the Editor: About the quality and impact of scientific articles
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2374-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Ricker |
| Abstract |
It is argued that counting the total number of times a scientific article is cited by others, does neither result in a proxy for its cognitive impact nor for its quality. One would have to distinguish at least substitutable and fundamental references. A supposed correlation between peer review assessments and citation counts is conceptually problematic, because peer review includes objective as well as subjective considerations (convictions). With refined methods, however, a differential citation analysis might be able in the future to answer if a given article did or did not have positive cognitive impact on subsequent research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 33% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Finland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 38% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Librarian | 3 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,795,648
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#1,185
of 2,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,963
of 310,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#35
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 310,143 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.