| Title |
Content and communication: How can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-8-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen Shashok |
| Abstract |
Peer review is assumed to improve the quality of research reports as tools for scientific communication, yet strong evidence that this outcome is obtained consistently has been elusive. Failure to distinguish between aspects of discipline-specific content and aspects of the writing or use of language may account for some deficiencies in current peer review processes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 22 | 26% |
| Unknown | 9 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 21 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 18% |
| Linguistics | 12 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 November 2012.
All research outputs
#4,566,616
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#721
of 1,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,181
of 156,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 156,174 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.