↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

RECORDS: improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 5,450)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
RECORDS: improved Reporting of montE CarlO RaDiation transport Studies: Report of the AAPM Research Committee Task Group 268
Published in
Medical Physics, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/mp.12702
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioannis Sechopoulos, D. W. O. Rogers, Magdalena Bazalova-Carter, Wesley E. Bolch, Emily C. Heath, Michael F. McNitt-Gray, Josep Sempau, Jeffrey F. Williamson

Abstract

Studies involving Monte Carlo simulations are common in both diagnostic and therapy medical physics research, as well as other fields of basic and applied science. As with all experimental studies, the conditions and parameters used for Monte Carlo simulations impact their scope, validity, limitations and generalizability. Unfortunately, many published peer-reviewed articles involving Monte Carlo simulations do not provide the level of detail needed for the reader to be able to properly assess the quality of the simulations. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group #268 developed guidelines to improve reporting of Monte Carlo studies in medical physics research. By following these guidelines, manuscripts submitted for peer-review will include a level of relevant detail that will increase the transparency, the ability to reproduce results, and the overall scientific value of these studies. The guidelines include a checklist of the items that should be included in the Methods, Results, and Discussion sections of manuscripts submitted for peer-review. These guidelines do not attempt to replace the journal reviewer, but rather to be a tool during the writing and review process. Given the varied nature of Monte Carlo studies, it is up to the authors and the reviewers to use this checklist appropriately, being conscious of how the different items apply to each particular scenario. It is envisioned that this list will be useful both for authors and for reviewers, to help ensure the adequate description of Monte Carlo studies in the medical physics literature. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 30%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 23 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Unspecified 5 12%
Engineering 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#867,686
of 12,406,609 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#29
of 5,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,688
of 360,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#1
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,406,609 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,450 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 360,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 97% of its contemporaries.