| Title |
Do Physicians Make Their Articles Readable for Their Blind or Low-Vision Patients? An Analysis of Current Image Processing Practices in Biomedical Journals from the Point of View of Accessibility
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-014-9674-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruno Splendiani, Mireia Ribera, Roberto Garcia, Miquel Termens |
| Abstract |
Visual content in biomedical academic papers is a growing source of critical information, but it is not always fully readable for people with visual impairments. We aimed to assess current image processing practices, accessibility policies, and submission policies in a sample of 12 highly cited biomedical journals. We manually checked the application of text-based alternative image descriptions for every image in 12 articles (one for each journal). We determined whether the journals claimed to follow an accessibility policy and we reviewed their submission policy and their guidelines related to the visual content. We identified important features concerning the processing of images and the characteristics of the visual and the retrieval options of visual content offered by the publishers. The evaluation shows that the actual practices of textual image description in highly cited biomedical journals do not follow general guidelines on accessibility. The images within the articles analyzed lack alternative descriptions or have uninformative descriptions, even in the case of journals claiming to follow an accessibility policy. Consequently, the visual information of scientific articles is not accessible to people with severe visual disabilities. Instructions on image submission are heterogeneous and a declaration of accessibility guidelines was only found in two thirds of the sample of journals, with one third not explicitly following any accessibility policy, although they are required to by law. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Barbados | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 8 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 February 2014.
All research outputs
#15,293,290
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#726
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,339
of 307,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 307,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.