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 |
Reproducibility of computational workflows is automated using continuous analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Biotechnology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nbt.3780 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brett K Beaulieu-Jones, Casey S Greene |
| Abstract |
Replication, validation and extension of experiments are crucial for scientific progress. Computational experiments are scriptable and should be easy to reproduce. However, computational analyses are designed and run in a specific computing environment, which may be difficult or impossible to match using written instructions. We report the development of continuous analysis, a workflow that enables reproducible computational analyses. Continuous analysis combines Docker, a container technology akin to virtual machines, with continuous integration, a software development technique, to automatically rerun a computational analysis whenever updates or improvements are made to source code or data. This enables researchers to reproduce results without contacting the study authors. Continuous analysis allows reviewers, editors or readers to verify reproducibility without manually downloading and rerunning code and can provide an audit trail for analyses of data that cannot be shared. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 207 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 | 68 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 17 | 8% |
| Canada | 9 | 4% |
| France | 9 | 4% |
| Japan | 5 | 2% |
| Australia | 4 | 2% |
| Germany | 4 | 2% |
| Spain | 3 | 1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 68 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 119 | 57% |
| Scientists | 83 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 295 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 86 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 63 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 12% |
| Other | 18 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 47 | 15% |
| Unknown | 40 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 62 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 51 | 17% |
| Engineering | 14 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 41 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 150. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#279,178
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Nature Biotechnology
#625
of 8,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,856
of 323,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Biotechnology
#9
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 323,410 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 91% of its contemporaries.