↓ Skip to main content

Targeting Bad Doctors: Lessons from Indiana, 1975–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, April 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Targeting Bad Doctors: Lessons from Indiana, 1975–2015
Published in
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, April 2019
DOI 10.1111/jels.12214
Authors

Jing Liu, David A. Hyman

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 2 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#15,569,433
of 23,142,049 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
#266
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,308
of 349,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,142,049 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 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 349,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.