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 |
Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0002761 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Kaplan, Nicola Lacetera, Celia Kaplan |
| Abstract |
The Working Group on Peer Review of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH has recommended that at least 4 reviewers should be used to assess each grant application. A sample size analysis of the number of reviewers needed to evaluate grant applications reveals that a substantially larger number of evaluators are required to provide the level of precision that is currently mandated. NIH should adjust their peer review system to account for the number of reviewers needed to provide adequate precision in their evaluations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 8% |
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 41 | 82% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 20% |
| Researcher | 9 | 18% |
| Professor | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Physics and Astronomy | 8 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 30% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 20 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,022,847
of 24,994,150 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#25,003
of 216,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,314
of 95,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#74
of 467 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,994,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 95,228 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 467 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.