↓ Skip to main content

Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope
Published in
Implementation Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0240-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robbie Foy, Anne Sales, Michel Wensing, Gregory A Aarons, Signe Flottorp, Bridie Kent, Susan Michie, Denise O’Connor, Anne Rogers, Nick Sevdalis, Sharon Straus, Paul Wilson

Abstract

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 115 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Psychology 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 38 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,703,277
of 24,849,927 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#322
of 1,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,515
of 270,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#13
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,849,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 270,239 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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.