↓ Skip to main content

What makes for sound science?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Plant Biology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
What makes for sound science?
Published in
BMC Plant Biology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12870-017-1139-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabrizio Costa, Grant Cramer, E. Jean Finnegan

Abstract

The inclusive threshold policy for publication in BMC journals including BMC Plant Biology means that editorial decisions are largely based on the soundness of the research presented rather than the novelty or potential impact of the work. Here we discuss what is required to ensure that research meets the requirement of scientific soundness. BMC Plant Biology and the other BCM-series journals ( https://www.biomedcentral.com/p/the-bmc-series-journals ) differ in policy from many other journals as they aim to provide a home for all publishable research. The inclusive threshold policy for publication means that editorial decisions are largely based on the soundness of the research presented rather than the novelty or potential impact of the work. The emphasis on scientific soundness ( http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/2016/12/05/vital-importance-inclusive/ ) rather than novelty or impact is important because it means that manuscripts that may be judged to be of low impact due to the nature of the study as well as those reporting negative results or that largely replicate earlier studies, all of which can be difficult to publish elsewhere, are available to the research community. Here we discuss the importance of the soundness of research and provide some basic guidelines to assist authors to determine whether their research is appropriate for submission to BMC Plant Biology.Prior to a research article being sent out for review, the handling editor will first determine whether the research presented is scientifically valid. To be valid the research must address a question of biological significance using suitable methods and analyses, and must follow community-agreed standards relevant to the research field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,058,343
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Plant Biology
#860
of 3,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,193
of 328,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Plant Biology
#16
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 328,166 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.