↓ Skip to main content

Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nursing Education, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
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
Learning About and Benefiting From Peer Review: A Course Assignment for Doctoral Students at Two Different Universities.
Published in
Journal of Nursing Education, June 2016
DOI 10.3928/01484834-20160516-07
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Peer review is an expectation of PhD-prepared nurses but a lack of evidence in the best methods to train students is of concern. Guided by the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model, faculty at two universities developed, implemented, and evaluated a peer review assignment for 22 second-year PhD nursing students. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Students reported the process of peer review was beneficial (82%) because it informed their own writing (59%), assisted them to read more critically (73%), and increased their appreciation of the role of peer review in the revision process (77%). Giving constructive feedback was difficult for students, but the feedback they received was helpful. Peer review is important to the development of science and an expectation of PhD-prepared nurses. Methods to include peer review in education are needed. [J Nurs Educ. 2016;55(6):342-344.].

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 42 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 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,861,151
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nursing Education
#502
of 1,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,925
of 344,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nursing Education
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,196 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 344,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.