Correction: Minimal model of interictal and ictal discharges "epileptor-2" (PLoS Comput Biol (2018) 14: 5 (e1006186) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006186)
PLoS Computational Biology, ISSN: 1553-7358, Vol: 15, Issue: 9, Page: e1007359
2019
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures4
- Readers4
Correction Description
In Fig 10 panels A and B are the wrong way around and the labels were therefore incorrect. The authors have provided a corrected version here. (Figure Presented).
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85072146049&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007359; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31513568; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007359; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007359; https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007359
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know