| Title |
Evaluating FAIR maturity through a scalable, automated, community-governed framework
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Data, September 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41597-019-0184-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Luiz Olavo Bonino da Silva Santos, Mario Prieto, Dominique Batista, Peter McQuilton, Tobias Kuhn, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Mercѐ Crosas, Erik Schultes |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 18% |
| France | 11 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 13% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 28 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 66% |
| Scientists | 23 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 27 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 24% |
| Unknown | 21 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 06 June 2023.
All research outputs
#473,055
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Data
#158
of 3,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,946
of 356,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Data
#6
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 356,245 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 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 94% of its contemporaries.