↓ Skip to main content

Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2014
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 (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jigisha Patel

Abstract

The purpose and effectiveness of peer review is currently a subject of hot debate, as is the need for greater openness and transparency in the conduct of clinical trials. Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Croatia 1 1%
Serbia 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 62 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Other 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Librarian 5 7%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Psychology 5 7%
Computer Science 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#193,661
of 14,257,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#174
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,095
of 300,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#20
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,257,572 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 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. 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 300,170 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 240 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 91% of its contemporaries.