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 |
Scientific Value of Systematic Reviews: Survey of Editors of Core Clinical Journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0035732 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joerg J Meerpohl, Florian Herrle, Stefan Reinders, Gerd Antes, Erik von Elm |
| Abstract |
Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Comoros | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
| Researcher | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 57 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 55 | 25% |
| Unknown | 67 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 11 November 2014.
All research outputs
#4,633,301
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#82,078
of 223,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,719
of 176,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#827
of 3,721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 176,362 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,721 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.