↓ Skip to main content

Big data: why ignorance is no longer acceptable

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Big data: why ignorance is no longer acceptable
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00192-018-3672-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Toozs-Hobson, Nicholas Toozs-Hobson, Thomas Kelley

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 50%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 63%
Unspecified 2 25%
Computer Science 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 September 2018.
All research outputs
#10,774,444
of 13,536,508 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#979
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,078
of 265,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#31
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,536,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.