↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Good enough practices in scientific computing

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 6,584)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
9 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1231 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1741 Mendeley
citeulike
9 CiteULike
Title
Good enough practices in scientific computing
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005510
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greg Wilson, Jennifer Bryan, Karen Cranston, Justin Kitzes, Lex Nederbragt, Tracy K. Teal

Abstract

Computers are now essential in all branches of science, but most researchers are never taught the equivalent of basic lab skills for research computing. As a result, data can get lost, analyses can take much longer than necessary, and researchers are limited in how effectively they can work with software and data. Computing workflows need to follow the same practices as lab projects and notebooks, with organized data, documented steps, and the project structured for reproducibility, but researchers new to computing often don't know where to start. This paper presents a set of good computing practices that every researcher can adopt, regardless of their current level of computational skill. These practices, which encompass data management, programming, collaborating with colleagues, organizing projects, tracking work, and writing manuscripts, are drawn from a wide variety of published sources from our daily lives and from our work with volunteer organizations that have delivered workshops to over 11,000 people since 2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,231 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 1,741 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 31 2%
United Kingdom 11 <1%
Germany 6 <1%
France 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Sweden 3 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Luxembourg 2 <1%
Other 14 <1%
Unknown 1661 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 504 29%
Researcher 402 23%
Student > Master 221 13%
Student > Bachelor 137 8%
Other 90 5%
Other 263 15%
Unknown 124 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 361 21%
Computer Science 152 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 144 8%
Physics and Astronomy 138 8%
Environmental Science 129 7%
Other 613 35%
Unknown 204 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 871. 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 24 February 2021.
All research outputs
#9,848
of 17,136,794 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#10
of 6,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303
of 274,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#1
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,136,794 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 6,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 274,235 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 158 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 99% of its contemporaries.