| Title |
Improving the trustworthiness, usefulness, and ethics of biomedical research through an innovative and comprehensive institutional initiative
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Biology, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000576 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Strech, Tracey Weissgerber, Ulrich Dirnagl, on behalf of QUEST Group |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 19 | 20% |
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 6% |
| Australia | 4 | 4% |
| Colombia | 3 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 42 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 63% |
| Scientists | 26 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 25% |
| Unknown | 24 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 05 August 2022.
All research outputs
#327,554
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Biology
#656
of 9,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,998
of 481,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Biology
#13
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 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 9,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 481,822 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 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.