| Title |
Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Georg Steinhauser, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A. Bendall, Yvonne S. Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony Brink, Darin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castaño, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B. Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin del Kebos, Michele DeRinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Rött, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Sophie Felsmann, Jarl Flensmark, Andrew K. Fletcher, Michaela Foster, Kostas N. Fountoulakis, Jim Fouratt, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Florian Gittler, Georg Gittler, Juan Gomez, Juan F. Gomez, Maria Grazia Gonzales Polar, Jossina Gonzalez, Christoph Gösselsberger, Lynn Habermacher, Michael Hajek, Faith Hakala, Mary-Sue Haliburton, John Robert Hankins, Jason Hart, Sepp Hasslberger, Donalyn Hennessey, Andrea Herrmann, Mike Hersee, Connie Howard, Suzanne Humphries, Laeeth Isharc, Petar Ivanovski, Stephen Jenuth, Jens Jerndal, Christine Johnson, Yonas Keleta, Anna Kenny, Billie Kidd, Fritz Kohle, Jafar Kolahi, Marianne Koller-Peroutka, Lyubov Kostova, Arunachalam Kumar, Alejandro Kurosawa, Tony Lance, Michael Lechermann, Bernhard Lendl, Michael Leuchters, Evan Lewis, Edward Lieb, Gloria Lloyd, Angelika Losek, Yao Lu, Saadia Maestracci, Dennis Mangan, Alberto W. Mares, Juan Mazar Barnett, Valerie McClain, John Sydney McNair, Terry Michael, Lloyd Miller, Partizia Monzani, Belen Moran, Mike Morris, Georg Mößmer, Johny Mountain, Onnie Mary Moyo Phuthe, Marcos Muñoz, Sheri Nakken, Anne Nduta Wambui, Bettina Neunteufl, Dimitrije Nikolić, Devesh V. Oberoi, Gregory Obmode, Laura Ogar, Jo Ohara, Naion Olej Rybine, Bryan Owen, Kim Wilson Owen, Rakesh Parikh, Nicholas J. G. Pearce, Bernhard Pemmer, Chris Piper, Ian Prince, Terence Reid, Heiner Rindermann, Stefan Risch, Josh Robbins, Seth Roberts, Ajeandro Romero, Michael Thaddäus Rothe, Sergio Ruiz, Juliane Sacher, Wolfgang Sackl, Markus Salletmaier, Jairaj Sanand, Clemens Sauerzopf, Thomas Schwarzgruber, David Scott, Laura Seegers, David Seppi, Kyle Shields, Jolanta Siller-Matula, Beldeu Singh, Sibusio Sithole, Florian Six, John R. Skoyles, Jildou Slofstra, Daphne Anne Sole, Werner F. Sommer, Mels Sonko, Chrislie J. Starr-Casanova, Marjorie Elizabeth Steakley, Wolfgang Steinhauser, Konstantin Steinhoff, Johannes H. Sterba, Martin Steppan, Reinhard Stindl, Joe Stokely, Karri Stokely, Gilles St-Pierre, James Stratford, Christina Streli, Carl Stryg, Mike Sullivan, Johann Summhammer, Amhayes Tadesse, David Tavares, Laura Thompson, Alison Tomlinson, Jack Tozer, Siro I. Trevisanato, Michaela Trimmel, Nicole Turner, Paul Vahur, Jennie van der Byl, Tine van der Maas, Leo Varela, Carlos A. Vega, Shiloh Vermaak, Alex Villasenor, Matt Vogel, Georg von Wintzigerode, Christoph Wagner, Manuel Weinberger, Peter Weinberger, Nick Wilson, Jennifer Finocchio Wolfe, Michael A. Woodley, Ian Young, Glenn Zuraw, Nicole Zwiren |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Denmark | 1 | 10% |
| Japan | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Professor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 19 | 24% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 29% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 22 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,055,987
of 25,542,788 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,085
of 191,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,542,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 191,547 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them