↓ Skip to main content

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacy Practice (Granada), March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers
Published in
Pharmacy Practice (Granada), March 2018
DOI 10.18549/pharmpract.2018.01.1236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Andrew D. Berti, Denise Yeung, Kazeem B. Yusuff, Mohamed E. El Zowalaty, Eyob D. Adane, Sinaa Al-Aqeel, Al-Jumaili Ali Azeez, Edita Alili-Idrizi, Marija Andelkovic, Anil Aranha, Mohammad Arief, Wiwat Arkaravichien, Xavier Armoiry, Omar F. Attarabeen, Nehad Ayoub, Beata V. Bajorek, Paul Beninger, Sarah J. Billups, Jane F. Bowen, Carla Bouwmeester, Patrick Campbell, Vincent Chan, Sharon E. Connor, Larry H. Danziger, Omar T. Dawood, Mark Dunnenberger, Selwa Elrouby, Souhiela Fakih, Rana K. Abu Farha, Isabel V. Figueiredo, Nazanin Foroutan, Lauren E. Forsythe, Caitlin K. Frail, Dan Friesner, Kylie Funk, Caroline Gaither, Casey E. Gallimore, Vincent Gan, Beate H. Garcia, Jessica L. Gaskins, Miguel A. Gastelurrutia, Justin Gatwood, Cheryl K. Genord, Eric Gilliam, Nancy Hope Goodbar, Maxine Gossell-Williams, Quinn Grundy, Line Guénette, Muhammad A. Hadi, Souheil Hallit, Drayton A. Hammond, Racha S. Hawasli, Maria T. Herdeiro, Andi Hermansyah, Ana L. Hincapie, James D. Hoehns, Lutfun N. Hossain, Brooke Hudspeth, Mohamed I. B. M. Ibrahim, Farida Islahudin, Ramune Jacobsen, Matthew Jones, Sofia Kälvemark Sporrong, Pamela Kantelhardt, Thando Katangwe, Maram G. Katoue, Sean R. King, Moira Kinnear, Lisa Kouladjian O’Donnell, Sandra V. Kovacevic, Ines Krass, Sarah K. Kraus, Dragana Lakic, Danielle Larson, Kate LeMay, Benjamin C. Loh, Nicole Lowres, Karen Luetsch, Carlotta Lunghi, Divaldo P. Lyra, Carolyn S., Elyse A. MacDonald, Michelle A. Mancuso, Faizan Mazhar, Lisa McCarthy, Meghan McComb, Michael S. McFarland, Gholamhossein Mehralian, Piotr Merks, Darko Modun, Mohammed A. Mohammed, Aude Motulsky, Tareq L. Mukattash, Shereen Nabhani-Gebara, Sheyda Najafi, Weiyi Ni, Sujin Nitadpakorn, Patricia U. Ogbo, Subish Palaian, Rachana J. Patel, Morgan H. Payne, Alex K. Peaslee, Leonardo R. Pereira, Tracy D. Perry, Yvonne Phan, Stefanie Plage, John P. Prybylski, Lieth H. Quffa, Lul Raka, Allan Ramos-Esquivel, Helen Ramsbottom, Ibrahim K. Rayes, Jadranka V. Rodriguez, Meagen Rosenthal, Cheryl A. Sadowski, Adam Sage, Teresa M. Salgado, Pui S. Saw, Katherine M. Schafer, Tim Schutte, Asrul A. Shafie, Ruchit M. Shah, Alok Sharma, Syed I. Shehnaz, Olayinka O. Shiyanbola, Piia Siitonen, Isabelle Skinner, Margie E. Snyder, Derek Stewart, Aimee Strang, Paul M. Stranges, Khizra Sultana, Satya Surbhi, Halit Sinan Suzen, Damian Swieczkowski, Chelsea L. Tasaka, Ann M. Taylor, Cory R. Theberge, Dimitra V. Travlos, J. Rick Turner, Bert Vandenberk, Sara A. Wettergreen, Charles M. White, Jon P. Wietholter, Francesca Wirth, Amber Young, Tracy Zembles

Abstract

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Lecturer 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Professor 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 26%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#22,187,860
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#165
of 352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,029
of 372,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 372,605 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.