↓ Skip to main content

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
8 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
62 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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.
Title
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000016.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin, Suzanne Brodney Folse, Frank Davidoff

Abstract

Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
United States 4 3%
Spain 3 2%
Netherlands 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Serbia 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 108 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 13 10%
Unspecified 10 8%
Other 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 38%
Unspecified 16 13%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Psychology 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Other 32 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 29 July 2019.
All research outputs
#183,682
of 13,500,084 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#429
of 10,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,080
of 222,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,500,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 222,303 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 520 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 95% of its contemporaries.