| Title |
The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9584-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José G. B. Derraik |
| Abstract |
There seems to be reluctance amongst scientists to invest some of their own time in the peer-review of manuscripts. As a result, journal editors often struggle to secure reviewers for a given manuscript in a timely manner. Here, two simple principles are proposed, which could fairly allocate the contribution of individual researchers to the peer-review process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 5 | 29% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Israel | 1 | 6% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Comoros | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 76% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 79% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 2 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Engineering | 2 | 14% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,676,151
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#133
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,833
of 243,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 243,029 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.