↓ Skip to main content

PNAS

Article Metrics

Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
266 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
4 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Opinion: Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to?
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2018
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Fanelli

Abstract

Efforts to improve the reproducibility and integrity of science are typically justified by a narrative of crisis, according to which most published results are unreliable due to growing problems with research and publication practices. This article provides an overview of recent evidence suggesting that this narrative is mistaken, and argues that a narrative of epochal changes and empowerment of scientists would be more accurate, inspiring, and compelling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 266 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 28%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 27 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 15%
Unspecified 15 15%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Other 33 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 268. 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 26 August 2018.
All research outputs
#36,216
of 11,810,927 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#926
of 75,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,294
of 271,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#41
of 1,030 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,810,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 75,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. 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 271,611 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,030 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 96% of its contemporaries.