| Title |
Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel M. Herron |
| Abstract |
The peer review process is the gold standard by which academic manuscripts are vetted for publication. However, some investigators have raised concerns regarding its unopposed supremacy, including lack of expediency, susceptibility to editorial bias and statistical limitation due to the small number of reviewers used. Post-publication review-in which the article is assessed by the general readership of the journal instead of a small group of appointed reviewers-could potentially supplement or replace the peer-review process. In this study, we created a computer model to compare the traditional peer-review process to that of post-publication reader review. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Croatia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 27% |
| Unknown | 8 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#1,892,729
of 25,040,629 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#156
of 6,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,362
of 161,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#1
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,040,629 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,743 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 161,515 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.