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 |
Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41073-018-0048-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catherine H. Davis, Barbara L. Bass, Kevin E. Behrns, Keith D. Lillemoe, O. James Garden, Mark S. Roh, Jeffrey E. Lee, Charles M. Balch, Thomas A. Aloia |
| Abstract |
Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions. Manuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher's exact tests. Impact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance. Substantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 | 5 | 29% |
| United States | 4 | 24% |
| Canada | 2 | 12% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 65% |
| Scientists | 4 | 24% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 2 | 17% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,441,463
of 23,070,218 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#61
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,483
of 330,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,070,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,223 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them