| Title |
Protocol for a retrospective, controlled cohort study of the impact of a change in Nature journals’ editorial policy for life sciences research on the completeness of reporting study design and execution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-016-1964-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fala Cramond, Cadi Irvine, Jing Liao, David Howells, Emily Sena, Gillian Currie, Malcolm Macleod |
| Abstract |
In recent years there has been increasing concern about the rigor of laboratory research. Here we present the protocol for a study comparing the completeness of reporting of in vivo and in vitro research carried in Nature Publication Group journals before and after the introduction of a change in editorial policy (the introduction of a set of guidelines for reporting); and in similar research published in other journals in the same periods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 13 | 29% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,106,831
of 25,346,731 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#153
of 2,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,194
of 316,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#3
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,346,731 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 2,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. 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 316,749 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 96% of its contemporaries.