↓ Skip to main content

Correlation between article download and citation figures for highly accessed articles from five open access oncology journals

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2013
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Correlation between article download and citation figures for highly accessed articles from five open access oncology journals
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carsten Nieder, Astrid Dalhaug, Gro Aandahl

Abstract

Different approaches can be chosen to quantify the impact and merits of scientific oncology publications. These include source of publication (including journal reputation and impact factor), whether or not articles are cited by others, and access/download figures. When relying on citation counts, one needs to obtain access to citation databases and has to consider that results differ from one database to another. Accumulation of citations takes time and their dynamics might differ from journal to journal and topic to topic. Therefore, we wanted to evaluate the correlation between citation and download figures, hypothesising that articles with fewer downloads also accumulate fewer citations. Typically, publishers provide download figures together with the article. We extracted and analysed the 50 most viewed articles from 5 different open access oncology journals. For each of the 5 journals and also all journals combined, correlation between number of accesses and citations was limited (r = 0.01-0.30). Considerable variations were also observed when analyses were restricted to specific article types such as reviews only (r = 0.21) or case reports only (r = 0.53). Even if year of publication was taken into account, high correlation coefficients were the exception from the rule. In conclusion, downloads are not a universal surrogate for citation figures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Spain 2 4%
South Africa 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 48 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 15 27%
Other 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Professor 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 24%
Computer Science 10 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 04 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,068,101
of 21,735,696 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#52
of 1,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,967
of 174,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,735,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 174,563 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them