↓ Skip to main content

Data Citation in Neuroimaging: Proposed Best Practices for Data Identification and Attribution

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Data Citation in Neuroimaging: Proposed Best Practices for Data Identification and Attribution
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2016.00034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leah B. Honor, Christian Haselgrove, Jean A. Frazier, David N. Kennedy

Abstract

Data sharing and reuse, while widely accepted as good ideas, have been slow to catch on in any concrete and consistent way. One major hurdle within the scientific community has been the lack of widely accepted standards for citing that data, making it difficult to track usage and measure impact. Within the neuroimaging community, there is a need for a way to not only clearly identify and cite datasets, but also to derive new aggregate sets from multiple sources while clearly maintaining lines of attribution. This work presents a functional prototype of a system to integrate Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) and a standardized metadata schema into a XNAT-based repository workflow, allowing for identification of data at both the project and image level. These item and source level identifiers allow any newly defined combination of images, from any number of projects, to be tagged with a new group-level DOI that automatically inherits the individual attributes and provenance information of its constituent parts. This system enables the tracking of data reuse down to the level of individual images. The implementation of this type of data identification system would impact researchers and data creators, data hosting facilities, and data publishers, but the benefit of having widely accepted standards for data identification and attribution would go far toward making data citation practical and advantageous.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Librarian 4 9%
Other 15 32%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 15%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 4 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,739,476
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#208
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,434
of 355,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 355,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.