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 |
Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0026895 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey T. Leek, Margaret A. Taub, Fernando J. Pineda |
| Abstract |
Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other's work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 110 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 | 22 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 58 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 67 | 61% |
| Scientists | 40 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 3% |
| Spain | 5 | 3% |
| France | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| Argentina | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 120 | 72% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 47 | 28% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 22% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 31 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 45 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 48 | 29% |
| Unknown | 11 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#393,777
of 25,826,146 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,554
of 225,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,421
of 156,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#50
of 2,656 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,826,146 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 225,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. 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 156,207 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 2,656 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 98% of its contemporaries.