↓ 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 (#33 of 24,907)
  • 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
43 news outlets
blogs
52 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
2253 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
10 Google+ users
reddit
7 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 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

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 2,253 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 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 294 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 <1%
Researcher 2 <1%
Student > Master 1 <1%
Librarian 1 <1%
Unknown 289 98%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Unknown 289 98%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2141. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#554
of 12,699,114 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#33
of 24,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16
of 332,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#1
of 352 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,699,114 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 24,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 60.5. 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 332,478 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 352 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.