↓ Skip to main content

Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2018
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 (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
277 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2018
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Fanelli

Abstract

Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 277 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 28%
Researcher 26 16%
Unspecified 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Master 12 7%
Other 49 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 19%
Unspecified 29 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Neuroscience 13 8%
Other 51 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 279. 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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#39,534
of 12,818,101 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#1,005
of 78,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,174
of 270,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#41
of 1,042 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,818,101 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 78,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. 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 270,557 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 1,042 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.