| Title |
Purchasing online journal access for a hospital medical library: how to identify value in commercially available products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomedical Digital Libraries, July 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1742-5581-3-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas P Carter, Anne O Carter, Gwendolyn Broomes |
| Abstract |
Medical practice today requires evaluating large amounts of information which should be available at all times. This information is found most easily in a digital form. Some information has already been evaluated for validity (evidence based medicine sources) and some is in unevaluated form (paper and online journals). In order to improve access to digital information, the School of Clinical Medicine and Research at the University of the West Indies and Queen Elizabeth Hospital decided to enhance the library by offering online full text medical articles and evidence based medicine sources. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the relative value of online journal commercial products available for a small hospital and medical school library. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 10 | 40% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 28% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 8% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 28% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
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 11 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Digital Libraries
#9
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,532
of 92,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Digital Libraries
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one scored the same or higher as 3 of them.
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 92,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.