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 |
Evaluation of scientific production in different subareas of Public Health: limits of the current model and contributions to the debate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cadernos de Saúde Pública, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0102-311x00065515 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Alberto Bernstein Iriart, Suely Ferreira Deslandes, Denise Martin, Kenneth Rochel de Camargo, Marilia Sá Carvalho, Cláudia Medina Coeli |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to discuss the limits of the quantitative evaluation model for scientific production in Public Health. An analysis of the scientific production of professors from the various subareas of Public Health was performed for 2010-2012. Distributions of the mean annual score for professors were compared according to subareas. The study estimated the likelihood that 60% of the professors in the graduate studies programs scored P50 (Very Good) or higher in their area. Professors of Epidemiology showed a significantly higher median annual score. Graduate studies programs whose faculty included at least 60% of Epidemiology professors and fewer than 10% from the subarea Social and Human Sciences in Health were significantly more likely to achieve a "Very Good" classification. The observed inequalities in scientific production between different subareas of Public Health point to the need to rethink their evaluation in order to avoid reproducing iniquities that have harmful consequences for the field's diversity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,713,861
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#397
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,587
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cadernos de Saúde Pública
#11
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,855 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 70% of its contemporaries.