↓ Skip to main content

Indexing by Bibliographic Databases of Journals Published in the Developing World

Overview of attention for article published in Science & Engineering Ethics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Indexing by Bibliographic Databases of Journals Published in the Developing World
Published in
Science & Engineering Ethics, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9898-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aamir Raoof Memon, Ahmed Waqas

Abstract

The removal of Beall's blog may result in increased numbers of predatory journals and their subsequent victims. Recognizing this, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) suggested criteria for identifying predatory journals in a statement issued on February 18, 2017. These criteria may be helpful in the current scenario of scientific publishing. However, a few lapses and limitations need to be taken into account when translating these policies to the situation in developing countries. This letter presents several cases of legitimate journals and platforms from the developing world that may be erroneously categorized as predatory according to the WAME criteria. We also suggest some improvements in these journals' policies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 5 38%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Computer Science 3 23%
Unspecified 2 15%
Social Sciences 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,897,272
of 9,243,111 outputs
Outputs from Science & Engineering Ethics
#202
of 591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,546
of 259,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science & Engineering Ethics
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,243,111 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 591 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 259,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 50% of its contemporaries.