The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 |
Re-run, Repeat, Reproduce, Reuse, Replicate: Transforming Code into Scientific Contributions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fninf.2017.00069 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabien C. Y. Benureau, Nicolas P. Rougier |
| Abstract |
Scientific code is different from production software. Scientific code, by producing results that are then analyzed and interpreted, participates in the elaboration of scientific conclusions. This imposes specific constraints on the code that are often overlooked in practice. We articulate, with a small example, five characteristics that a scientific code in computational science should possess: re-runnable, repeatable, reproducible, reusable, and replicable. The code should be executable (re-runnable) and produce the same result more than once (repeatable); it should allow an investigator to reobtain the published results (reproducible) while being easy to use, understand and modify (reusable), and it should act as an available reference for any ambiguity in the algorithmic descriptions of the article (replicable). |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 9% |
| France | 7 | 7% |
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 3 | 3% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 59 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 64 | 65% |
| Scientists | 28 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 123 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 24% |
| Researcher | 27 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 28 | 23% |
| Engineering | 11 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 35 | 28% |
| Unknown | 32 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 13 January 2024.
All research outputs
#685,388
of 26,456,908 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#14
of 857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,075
of 456,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,456,908 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 857 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 456,896 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.