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 |
Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-74 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roger Chun-Man Ho, Kwok-Kei Mak, Ren Tao, Yanxia Lu, Jeffrey R Day, Fang Pan |
| Abstract |
Peer review is the major method used by biomedical journals for making the decision of publishing an article. This cross-sectional survey assesses views concerning the review system of biomedical journals among academics globally. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 5 | 10% |
| Canada | 3 | 6% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| Belgium | 3 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 69% |
| Scientists | 11 | 22% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 67 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 25% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 15 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 26% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#730,302
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#55
of 2,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,430
of 210,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. 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 210,205 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.