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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Usefulness of Peer Review for Selecting Manuscripts for Publication: A Utility Analysis Taking as an Example a High-Impact Journal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0011344 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 48 | 77% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 13 | 21% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 29% |
| Unknown | 7 | 11% |
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 03 October 2013.
All research outputs
#4,126,228
of 23,289,753 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#61,192
of 198,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,983
of 94,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#246
of 717 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,289,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 198,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 94,742 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 717 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.