↓ Skip to main content

Data Sharing.

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 20,438)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
41 news outlets
blogs
53 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2333 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
reddit
7 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Data Sharing.
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejme1516564
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dan L. Longo, Jeffrey M. Drazen, Longo, Dan L, Drazen, Jeffrey M, Longo, Dan L., Drazen, Jeffrey M.

Abstract

The aerial view of the concept of data sharing is beautiful. What could be better than having high-quality information carefully reexamined for the possibility that new nuggets of useful data are lying there, previously unseen? The potential for leveraging existing results for even more benefit pays appropriate increased tribute to the patients who put themselves at risk to generate the data. The moral imperative to honor their collective sacrifice is the trump card that takes this trick. However, many of us who have actually conducted clinical research, managed clinical studies and data collection and analysis, and curated data sets have . . .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,333 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 10%
United Kingdom 8 5%
Germany 4 2%
Spain 4 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Switzerland 2 1%
Egypt 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 118 71%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 24%
Professor 16 10%
Student > Master 14 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 7%
Other 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 23%
Computer Science 18 11%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 33 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2262. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#244
of 8,515,421 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#13
of 20,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15
of 334,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#2
of 338 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,515,421 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 20,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 49.8. 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 334,114 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 338 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 99% of its contemporaries.