↓ Skip to main content

Ten Steps for Setting Up an Online Journal Club

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Continuing Education for Health Professionals, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 196)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
69 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Ten Steps for Setting Up an Online Journal Club
Published in
The Journal of Continuing Education for Health Professionals, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/chp.21275
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa M. Chan, Brent Thoma, Ryan Radecki, Joel Topf, Henry H. Woo, Lillian S. Kao, Amalia Cochran, Swapnil Hiremath, Michelle Lin

Abstract

Journal clubs have an extensive history that dates back to the time of Sir William Osler. They provide a venue to discuss the latest medical literature among groups of peers and are an innovative method for translating knowledge into practice within individual institutions. With advances in social media, journal clubs are poised to take an evolutionary step by harnessing digital connectivity. Online journal clubs are uniting hundreds of medical practitioners from around the world under the banner of one cause: enhancing knowledge translation of the medical literature without the limitations of geography. This article describes 10 steps for creating online journal clubs based on the experiences of a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and medical educators.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 7%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 42 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Other 16 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 46%
Unspecified 6 13%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Computer Science 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Other 6 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#337,776
of 13,383,707 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Continuing Education for Health Professionals
#1
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,153
of 232,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Continuing Education for Health Professionals
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,383,707 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 232,734 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them