↓ Skip to main content

Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, September 2016
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
39 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0019-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A. Byrne

Abstract

As the size of the published scientific literature has increased exponentially over the past 30 years, review articles play an increasingly important role in helping researchers to make sense of original research results. Literature reviews can be broadly classified as either "systematic" or "narrative". Narrative reviews may be broader in scope than systematic reviews, but have been criticised for lacking synthesis and rigour. The submission of more scientific manuscripts requires more researchers acting as peer reviewers, which requires adding greater numbers of new reviewers to the reviewing population over time. However, whereas there are many easily accessible guides for reviewers of primary research manuscripts, there are few similar resources to assist reviewers of narrative reviews. Here, I summarise why literature reviews are valued by their diverse readership and how peer reviewers with different levels of content expertise can improve the reliability and accessibility of narrative review articles. I then provide a number of recommendations for peer reviewers of narrative literature reviews, to improve the integrity of the scientific literature, while also ensuring that narrative review articles meet the needs of both expert and non-expert readers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 24%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Professor 7 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 16%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Psychology 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 35 24%
Unknown 28 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#972,359
of 19,814,211 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#51
of 110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,392
of 283,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,814,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 283,326 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.