↓ Skip to main content

Technical and Organizational Considerations for the Long-Term Maintenance and Development of Digital Brain Atlases and Web-Based Databases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Technical and Organizational Considerations for the Long-Term Maintenance and Development of Digital Brain Atlases and Web-Based Databases
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2010.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kei Ito

Abstract

Digital brain atlas is a kind of image database that specifically provide information about neurons and glial cells in the brain. It has various advantages that are unmatched by conventional paper-based atlases. Such advantages, however, may become disadvantages if appropriate cares are not taken. Because digital atlases can provide unlimited amount of data, they should be designed to minimize redundancy and keep consistency of the records that may be added incrementally by different staffs. The fact that digital atlases can easily be revised necessitates a system to assure that users can access previous versions that might have been cited in papers at a particular period. To inherit our knowledge to our descendants, such databases should be maintained for a very long period, well over 100 years, like printed books and papers. Technical and organizational measures to enable long-term archive should be considered seriously. Compared to the initial development of the database, subsequent efforts to increase the quality and quantity of its contents are not regarded highly, because such tasks do not materialize in the form of publications. This fact strongly discourages continuous expansion of, and external contributions to, the digital atlases after its initial launch. To solve these problems, the role of the biocurators is vital. Appreciation of the scientific achievements of the people who do not write papers, and establishment of the secure academic career path for them, are indispensable for recruiting talents for this very important job.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 6%
Netherlands 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Singapore 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 27 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 21%
Neuroscience 5 15%
Computer Science 4 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Engineering 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 4 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 May 2012.
All research outputs
#15,249,959
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#960
of 1,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,040
of 163,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 163,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.