↓ Skip to main content

Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00198
Pubmed ID
Authors

David W. Galbraith

Abstract

Publication forms the core structure supporting the development and transmission of scientific knowledge. For this reason, it is essential that the highest standards of quality control be maintained, in particular to ensure that the information being transmitted allows reproducible replication of the described experiments, and that the interpretation of the results is sound. Quality control has traditionally involved editorial decisions based on anonymous pre-publication peer review. Post-publication review of individual articles took the lesser role since it did not feed directly back to the original literature. Rapid advances in computer and communications technologies over the last thirty years have revolutionized scientific publication, and the role and scope of post-publication review has greatly expanded. This perspective examines the ways in which pre- and post-publication peer review influence the scientific literature, and in particular how they might best be redrawn to deal with the twin problems of scientific non-reproducibility and fraud increasingly encountered at the frontiers of science.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Student > Master 3 18%
Professor 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Neuroscience 2 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 November 2022.
All research outputs
#3,739,153
of 23,153,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,132
of 12,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,067
of 267,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#16
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,153,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,190 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 267,683 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.