↓ Skip to main content

You are invited to submit…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, August 2015
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
36 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
You are invited to submit…
Published in
BMC Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Moher, Anubhav Srivastava

Abstract

The academic community is under great pressure to publish. This pressure is compounded by high rejection rates at many journals. A more recent trend is for some journals to send invitations directly to researchers inviting them to submit a manuscript to their journals. Many researchers find these invitations annoying and unsure how best to respond to them. We collected electronic invitations to submit a manuscript to a journal between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015. We analyzed their content and cross-tabulated them against journals listed in Beall's list of potential predatory journals. During this time period, 311 invitations were received for 204 journals, the majority of which were in Beall's list (n = 244; 79 %). The invitations came throughout the calendar year and some journals sent up to six invitations. The majority of journals claimed to provide peer review (n = 179; 57.6 %) although no mention was made of expedited review process. Similarly, more than half of the journals claimed to be open access (n = 186; 59.8 %). The majority of invitations included an unsubscribe link (n = 187; 60.1 %). About half of the invitations came from biomedical journals (n = 179). We discuss strategies researchers and institutions can consider to reduce the number of invitations received and strategies to handle those invitations that make it to the recipients' inbox, thus helping to maintain the credibility and reputation of researchers and institutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
North Macedonia 1 1%
Unknown 83 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 25 29%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Professor 6 7%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 24 28%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 26%
Social Sciences 15 17%
Computer Science 5 6%
Arts and Humanities 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 103. 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 2022.
All research outputs
#398,403
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#299
of 3,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,504
of 269,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#7
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 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 3,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 269,833 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 92% of its contemporaries.