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 |
Do peer review models affect clinicians’ trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Integrity and Peer Review, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41073-017-0029-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jigisha Patel, Mary Pierce, Stephanie L. Boughton, Stephanie E. Baldeweg |
| Abstract |
The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making. A 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database. The response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked.The NEJM,LancetandThe BMJwere deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training. Junior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 | 13 | 31% |
| United States | 5 | 12% |
| Canada | 2 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 76% |
| Scientists | 5 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#932,213
of 24,163,421 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#41
of 124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,849
of 318,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,163,421 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 318,998 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.