% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Yeung:904822,
      author       = {Yeung, Andy Wai Kan and Singh, Pradeep and Eickhoff, Simon
                      B.},
      title        = {{T}he dissemination of brain imaging guidelines and
                      recommendations},
      journal      = {IBRO neuroscience reports},
      volume       = {12},
      issn         = {2667-2421},
      address      = {[Amsterdam]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier B.V.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2022-00148},
      pages        = {20 - 24},
      year         = {2022},
      abstract     = {Many neuroimaging guidelines and recommendations have been
                      published in the literature to guide fellow researchers to
                      conduct and report research findings in a standardized
                      manner. It was largely unknown if they were cited or read by
                      the scientific community. Analyses were conducted to assess
                      their impact in terms of citations, Twitter posts, and
                      Mendeley reads. Web of Science Core Collection database was
                      accessed to identify relevant publications. The number of
                      their Twitter posts and Mendeley reads were recorded from
                      Altmetric and Mendeley databases respectively. Spearman
                      correlation tests were conducted to evaluate if the citation
                      count had a relationship with these metrics. When all 1786
                      publications were considered, citation count had a strong
                      positive correlation with Mendeley reads (rho = 0.602, p <
                      0.001), but a weak negative correlation with Twitter posts
                      (rho = −0.085, p < 0.001). When publications in the 2010 s
                      were specifically considered, citation count had an even
                      stronger positive correlation with Mendeley reads (rho =
                      0.712, P < 0.001), whereas the correlation with Twitter
                      posts became positive but still weak (rho = 0.072, P =
                      0.012). Temporal profiles of citation and Mendeley counts
                      showed that these guidelines and recommendations had a
                      relatively stable influence in the field for years after
                      being published.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:000793457000002},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.ibneur.2021.11.003},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/904822},
}