| Title |
Peering into peer-review at GigaScience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Giga Science, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2047-217x-2-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott C Edmunds |
| Abstract |
Fostering and promoting more open and transparent science is one of the goals of GigaScience. One of the ways we have been doing this is by throwing light on the peer-review process and carrying out open peer-review as standard. In this editorial, we provide our rationale for undertaking this policy, give examples of our positive experiences to date, and encourage others to open up the normally opaque publication process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 25% |
| United States | 3 | 8% |
| Hong Kong | 2 | 5% |
| Austria | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 68% |
| Scientists | 9 | 23% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong | 2 | 8% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 24% |
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#742,192
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#78
of 1,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,664
of 290,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 290,058 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.