↓ Skip to main content

Decoupling the scholarly journal

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2012
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 (#17 of 1,475)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
61 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Decoupling the scholarly journal
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason Priem, Bradley M. Hemminger

Abstract

Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the "decoupled journal (DcJ)." In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces-a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 17 10%
Germany 6 4%
Spain 4 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Brazil 3 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Switzerland 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 108 66%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 30 18%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Other 19 12%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 42 26%
Unknown 9 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 55 34%
Computer Science 39 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Arts and Humanities 10 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 9 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 119. 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 28 June 2022.
All research outputs
#357,042
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#17
of 1,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,789
of 251,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#3
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 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 1,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 251,727 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 70 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.