| Title |
Beyond Bonferroni revisited: concerns over inflated false positive research findings in the fields of conservation genetics, biology, and medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Genetics, April 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10592-019-01178-0 |
| Authors |
Tonya White, Jan van der Ende, Thomas E. Nichols |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 Kingdom | 12 | 22% |
| United States | 6 | 11% |
| Canada | 4 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 4 | 7% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 54% |
| Scientists | 22 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 29 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,201,850
of 24,780,938 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Genetics
#59
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,824
of 359,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Genetics
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,780,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 359,148 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.