↓ 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 (87th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 92 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%
Unknown 84 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 17%
Researcher 16 17%
Librarian 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Computer Science 5 5%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 19 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 81. 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 10 August 2019.
All research outputs
#523,252
of 25,390,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#396
of 3,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,651
of 237,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. 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 237,884 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.