The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Synthesis Methods, December 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1002/jrsm.1684 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle Pollock, Timothy Hugh Barker, Jennifer C Stone, Edoardo Aromataris, Miloslav Klugar, Anna M Scott, Cindy Stern, Amanda Ross‐White, Ashley Whitehorn, Rick Wiechula, Larissa Shamseer, Zachary Munn |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 7% |
| Australia | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 2% |
| Lebanon | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Czechia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 42 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 45% |
| Scientists | 16 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 3 | 23% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 31% |
| Engineering | 2 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
#834,720
of 26,450,612 outputs
Outputs from Research Synthesis Methods
#13
of 573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,227
of 391,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Synthesis Methods
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,450,612 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. 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 391,020 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 21 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 95% of its contemporaries.