↓ Skip to main content

Social Media Responses to the Annals of Emergency Medicine Residents' Perspective Article on Multiple Mini-Interviews

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Social Media Responses to the Annals of Emergency Medicine Residents' Perspective Article on Multiple Mini-Interviews
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.07.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikita K. Joshi, Lalena M. Yarris, Christopher I. Doty, Michelle Lin

Abstract

In May 2014, Annals of Emergency Medicine continued a successful collaboration with an academic Web site, Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) to host an online discussion session featuring the 2014 Annals Residents' Perspective article "Does the Multiple Mini-Interview Address Stakeholder Needs? An Applicant's Perspective" by Phillips and Garmel. This dialogue included Twitter conversations, a live videocast with the authors and other experts, and detailed discussions on the ALiEM Web site's comment section. This summary article serves the dual purpose of reporting the qualitative thematic analysis from a global online discussion and the Web analytics for our novel multimodal approach. Social media technologies provide a unique opportunity to engage with a diverse audience to detect existing and new emerging themes. Such technologies allow rapid hypothesis generation for future research and enable more accelerated knowledge translation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Turkey 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 49%
Computer Science 6 15%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 3 7%

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 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,424,056
of 12,016,324 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#2,219
of 4,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,051
of 202,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#33
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,016,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 202,385 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.