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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An evaluation of impacts in “Nanoscience & nanotechnology”: steps towards standards for citation analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-012-0750-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Loet Leydesdorff |
| Abstract |
One is inclined to conceptualize impact in terms of citations per publication, and thus as an average. However, citation distributions are skewed, and the average has the disadvantage that the number of publications is used in the denominator. Using hundred percentiles, one can integrate the normalized citation curve and develop an indicator that can be compared across document sets because percentile ranks are defined at the article level. I apply this indicator to the set of 58 journals in the WoS Subject Category of "Nanoscience & nanotechnology," and rank journals, countries, cities, and institutes using non-parametric statistics. The significance levels of results can thus be indicated. The results are first compared with the ISI-impact factors, but this Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be used with any set downloaded from the (Social) Science Citation Index. The software is made publicly available at the Internet. Visualization techniques are also specified for evaluation by positioning institutes on Google Map overlays. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| Israel | 1 | 2% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 19% |
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Librarian | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 14 | 27% |
| Unknown | 4 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 15 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 12 | 23% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 July 2012.
All research outputs
#5,718,476
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#1,010
of 2,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,518
of 163,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 163,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.