| Title |
A systematic review and evaluation of Zika virus forecasting and prediction research during a public health emergency of international concern
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, October 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007451 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pei-Ying Kobres, Jean-Paul Chretien, Michael A. Johansson, Jeffrey J. Morgan, Pai-Yei Whung, Harshini Mukundan, Sara Y. Del Valle, Brett M. Forshey, Talia M. Quandelacy, Matthew Biggerstaff, Cecile Viboud, Simon Pollett |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 States | 5 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 135 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 22% |
| Unknown | 44 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,127,881
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#2,110
of 9,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,014
of 364,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#42
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 364,681 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 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 72% of its contemporaries.