↓ Skip to main content

The landscape of NeuroImage-ing research

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
138 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
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.
Title
The landscape of NeuroImage-ing research
Published in
NeuroImage, September 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jordan D. Dworkin, Russell T. Shinohara, Danielle S. Bassett

Abstract

As the field of neuroimaging grows, it can be difficult for scientists within the field to gain and maintain a detailed understanding of its ever-changing landscape. While collaboration and citation networks highlight important contributions within the field, the roles of and relations among specific areas of study can remain quite opaque. Here, we apply techniques from network science to map the landscape of neuroimaging research documented in the journal NeuroImage over the past decade. We create a network in which nodes represent research topics, and edges give the degree to which these topics tend to be covered in tandem. The network displays small-world architecture, with communities characterized by common imaging modalities and medical applications, and with hubs that integrate these distinct subfields. Using node-level analysis, we quantify the structural roles of individual topics within the neuroimaging landscape, and find high levels of clustering within the structural MRI subfield as well as increasing participation among topics related to psychiatry. The overall prevalence of a topic is unrelated to the prevalence of its neighbors, but the degree to which a topic becomes more or less popular over time is strongly related to changes in the prevalence of its neighbors. Finally, we incorporate data from PNAS to investigate whether it serves as a trend-setter for topics' use within NeuroImage. We find that popularity trends are correlated across the two journals, and that changes in popularity tend to occur earlier within PNAS among growing topics. Broadly, this work presents a cohesive model for understanding the emergent relationships and dynamics of research topics within NeuroImage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 138 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 26%
Psychology 8 9%
Computer Science 8 9%
Engineering 8 9%
Physics and Astronomy 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 23 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#453,325
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#190
of 12,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,548
of 346,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#6
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,277 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 346,629 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 97% of its contemporaries.