↓ Skip to main content

Another Time, Another Space: The Evolution of the Virtual Journal Club

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Radiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
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.
Title
Another Time, Another Space: The Evolution of the Virtual Journal Club
Published in
Academic Radiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.acra.2016.08.030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison L. Chetlen, Carol M. Dell, Agnieszka O. Solberg, Hansel J. Otero, Kirsteen R. Burton, Matthew T. Heller, Nikita Lakomkin, Stephane L. Desouches, Stacy E. Smith

Abstract

Virtual journal clubs (VJCs) provide a standardized, easily accessible forum for evidence-based discussion. The new virtual reality setting in which journal clubs and other online education events now take place offers great advantages and new opportunities for radiologists in academic medicine and private practice. VJCs continue to evolve, largely due to many emerging technologies and platforms. VJCs will continue to play an increasingly important role in medical education, interdisciplinary interaction, and multi-institutional collaboration. In this article, we discuss how to conduct and lead a critical review of medical literature in the setting of a virtual or traditional journal club. We discuss the current applications of VJCs in medical and graduate medical education and continued lifelong learning. We also explain the advantages and disadvantages of VJCs over traditional venues. Finally, the reader will be given the tools to successfully implement and run a VJC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 27%
Student > Master 7 27%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 27%
Engineering 3 12%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Other 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,473,816
of 12,231,187 outputs
Outputs from Academic Radiology
#682
of 1,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,195
of 336,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Radiology
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,231,187 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,150 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,615 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.