| Title |
“Reproducible” Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11538-018-0500-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Santiago Schnell |
| Abstract |
The nature of scientific research in mathematical and computational biology allows editors and reviewers to evaluate the findings of a scientific paper. Replication of a research study should be the minimum standard for judging its scientific claims and considering it for publication. This requires changes in the current peer review practice and a strict adoption of a replication policy similar to those adopted in experimental fields such as organic synthesis. In the future, the culture of replication can be easily adopted by publishing papers through dynamic computational notebooks combining formatted text, equations, computer algebra and computer code. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 | 5 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 11 | 73% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Professor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Librarian | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mathematics | 7 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 27% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,617,560
of 25,416,581 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#143
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,904
of 351,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#7
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,416,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 351,633 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.