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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
PAV ontology: provenance, authoring and versioning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Biomedical Semantics, January 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 |
| 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 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 78 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 45 | 49% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,316,732
of 24,447,003 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#7
of 364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,661
of 289,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Semantics
#2
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,447,003 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 364 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 289,767 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 31 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 96% of its contemporaries.