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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-016-2160-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ronald Snijder |
| Abstract |
An experiment run in 2009 could not assess whether making monographs available in open access enhanced scholarly impact. This paper revisits the experiment, drawing on additional citation data and tweets. It attempts to answer the following research question: does open access have a positive influence on the number of citations and tweets a monograph receives, taking into account the influence of scholarly field and language? The correlation between monograph citations and tweets is also investigated. The number of citations and tweets measured in 2014 reveal a slight open access advantage, but the influence of language or subject should also be taken into account. However, Twitter usage and citation behaviour hardly overlap. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 | 6 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 10% |
| Germany | 4 | 8% |
| Australia | 3 | 6% |
| United States | 3 | 6% |
| Portugal | 2 | 4% |
| Austria | 2 | 4% |
| Italy | 2 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 19 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 34 | 71% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 17% |
| Scientists | 6 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Librarian | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 17 | 30% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,247,018
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#185
of 2,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,376
of 324,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#3
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 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 2,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 324,170 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 53 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 94% of its contemporaries.