↓ Skip to main content

PAV ontology: provenance, authoring and versioning.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Semantics, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 263)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
PAV ontology: provenance, authoring and versioning.
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/2041-1480-4-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Ciccarese, Stian Soiland-Reyes, Khalid Belhajjame, Alasdair JG Gray, Carole Goble, Tim Clark, Ciccarese P, Soiland-Reyes S, Belhajjame K, Gray AJ, Goble C, Clark T

Abstract

Provenance is a critical ingredient for establishing trust of published scientific content. This is true whether we are considering a data set, a computational workflow, a peer-reviewed publication or a simple scientific claim with supportive evidence. Existing vocabularies such as Dublin Core Terms (DC Terms) and the W3C Provenance Ontology (PROV-O) are domain-independent and general-purpose and they allow and encourage for extensions to cover more specific needs. In particular, to track authoring and versioning information of web resources, PROV-O provides a basic methodology but not any specific classes and properties for identifying or distinguishing between the various roles assumed by agents manipulating digital artifacts, such as author, contributor and curator.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Netherlands 2 3%
France 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 51 76%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 27%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 38 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 21%
Unspecified 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Philosophy 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 2 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#225,501
of 7,662,843 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#2
of 263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,467
of 167,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,662,843 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 263 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 167,291 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 95% of its contemporaries.