↓ Skip to main content

Social Media in Hematology in 2017: Dystopia, Utopia, or Somewhere In-between?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 234)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Social Media in Hematology in 2017: Dystopia, Utopia, or Somewhere In-between?
Published in
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11899-017-0424-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron T. Gerds, Teresa Chan

Abstract

Social media is becoming a crucial part of our society. While the field of medicine has lagged behind in adopting and harnessing these platforms, we are now starting to see a surge in social media usage for medical education and scientific communication (e.g., knowledge translation, research collaboration, discussion, and discourse). Over the course of this review, we aim to update the reader on the way in which Twitter and other social media platforms may be used in hematology for research ideas, collaboration, and scholarly activity. Twitter use has grown exponentially over the past decade and is now woven into the fabric of modern communication. It can be a useful tool for those who wish to engage both colleagues and the public. While some issues such as reporting of financial conflict of interest still need to be addressed, Twitter, and social medial in general, can be a powerful instrument for researchers, educators, patients, and advocacy groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Unspecified 2 15%
Social Sciences 2 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 8%
Computer Science 1 8%
Other 2 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 December 2018.
All research outputs
#645,432
of 12,271,314 outputs
Outputs from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#10
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,268
of 288,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,271,314 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 234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 288,671 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.