The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of a Peer-Review Report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1289/ehp.8875 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna K. Harding, George P. Daston, Glen R. Boyd, George W. Lucier, Stephen H. Safe, Juarine Stewart, Donald E. Tillitt, Glen Van Der Kraak |
| Abstract |
At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development, a subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee conducted an independent and open peer review of the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research Program (EDC Research Program) of the U.S. EPA. The subcommittee was charged with reviewing the design, relevance, progress, scientific leadership, and resources of the program. The subcommittee found that the long-term goals and science questions in the EDC Program are appropriate and represent an understandable and solid framework for setting research priorities, representing a combination of problem-driven and core research. Long-term goal (LTG) 1, dealing with the underlying science surrounding endocrine disruptors, provides a solid scientific foundation for conducting risk assessments and making risk management decisions. LTG 2, dealing with defining the extent of the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), has shown greater progress on ecologic effects of EDCs compared with that on human health effects. LTG 3, which involves support of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program of the U.S. EPA, has two mammalian tests already through a validation program and soon available for use. Despite good progress, we recommend that the U.S. EPA a) strengthen their expertise in wildlife toxicology, b) expedite validation of the Endocrine Disruptors Screening and Testing Advisory Committee tests, c) continue dependable funding for the EDC Research Program, d) take a leadership role in the application of "omics" technologies to address many of the science questions critical for evaluating environmental and human health effects of EDCs, and e) continue to sponsor multidisciplinary intramural research and interagency collaborations. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Professor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 19 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
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 21 April 2023.
All research outputs
#5,621,858
of 25,990,981 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health Perspectives
#167
of 614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,896
of 88,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health Perspectives
#31
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,990,981 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 88,525 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.