↓ Skip to main content

Is Biblioleaks Inevitable?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
151 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Is Biblioleaks Inevitable?
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, April 2014
DOI 10.2196/jmir.3331
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam G Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D Mandl

Abstract

In 2014, the vast majority of published biomedical research is still hidden behind paywalls rather than open access. For more than a decade, similar restrictions over other digitally available content have engendered illegal activity. Music file sharing became rampant in the late 1990s as communities formed around new ways to share. The frequency and scale of cyber-attacks against commercial and government interests has increased dramatically. Massive troves of classified government documents have become public through the actions of a few. Yet we have not seen significant growth in the illegal sharing of peer-reviewed academic articles. Should we truly expect that biomedical publishing is somehow at less risk than other content-generating industries? What of the larger threat--a "Biblioleaks" event--a database breach and public leak of the substantial archives of biomedical literature? As the expectation that all research should be available to everyone becomes the norm for a younger generation of researchers and the broader community, the motivations for such a leak are likely to grow. We explore the feasibility and consequences of a Biblioleaks event for researchers, journals, publishers, and the broader communities of doctors and the patients they serve.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 151 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 27 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Librarian 7 23%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Arts and Humanities 3 10%
Computer Science 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 7 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 143. 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 25 November 2018.
All research outputs
#93,070
of 12,827,886 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#64
of 2,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,493
of 189,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,827,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 189,745 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 93% of its contemporaries.