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 |
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel Bruce, Anthony Chauvin, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron |
| Abstract |
The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 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 | 37 | 28% |
| United States | 11 | 8% |
| Australia | 4 | 3% |
| Italy | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 51 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 79 | 59% |
| Scientists | 37 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 99 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 29% |
| Psychology | 9 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 28 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#327,826
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#268
of 4,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,364
of 361,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#4
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 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 4,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 361,316 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 40 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 90% of its contemporaries.