↓ Skip to main content

Pathways towards instability in financial networks

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
107 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pathways towards instability in financial networks
Published in
Nature Communications, February 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms14416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Bardoscia, Stefano Battiston, Fabio Caccioli, Guido Caldarelli

Abstract

Following the financial crisis of 2007-2008, a deep analogy between the origins of instability in financial systems and complex ecosystems has been pointed out: in both cases, topological features of network structures influence how easily distress can spread within the system. However, in financial network models, the details of how financial institutions interact typically play a decisive role, and a general understanding of precisely how network topology creates instability remains lacking. Here we show how processes that are widely believed to stabilize the financial system, that is, market integration and diversification, can actually drive it towards instability, as they contribute to create cyclical structures which tend to amplify financial distress, thereby undermining systemic stability and making large crises more likely. This result holds irrespective of the details of how institutions interact, showing that policy-relevant analysis of the factors affecting financial stability can be carried out while abstracting away from such details.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Finland 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 115 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 28%
Researcher 24 19%
Unspecified 16 13%
Other 11 9%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 29 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 27 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 24 19%
Physics and Astronomy 15 12%
Computer Science 14 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 8%
Other 34 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 114. 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 30 January 2019.
All research outputs
#141,983
of 13,769,756 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#2,431
of 25,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,811
of 266,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#30
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,769,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,218 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 266,466 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 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.