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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Systematic Differences in Impact across Publication Tracks at PNAS
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0008092 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David G. Rand, Thomas Pfeiffer |
| Abstract |
Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 3% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 3% |
| Israel | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
| Scientists | 10 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Germany | 3 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 40 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 36% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Librarian | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 25% |
| Unknown | 5 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#661,223
of 25,634,695 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,852
of 223,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,163
of 178,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#24
of 575 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,634,695 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 223,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 178,288 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 575 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 95% of its contemporaries.