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 |
Developing the infrastructure for patient review in academic journals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Research Involvement and Engagement, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40900-018-0114-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophie Staniszewska, Richard Stephens, Ella Flemyng |
| Abstract |
Peer review is a well-established part of academic publishing. Its function is to assess the quality of a manuscript before publication in a journal. Research involvement and Engagement is the world's first co-produced journal dedicated to developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement and engagement in health and social care research. Alongside traditional academic peer review we also involve other key stakeholders, including patients, carers, the public, policy makers, funders and practitioners. Following a recent survey looking at the motivations and feedback from patient reviewers in academic journals, we consider the key findings, reflect on what we already do and based on the feedback from the survey, we outline plans for future development. These plans include improving training and guidance for reviewers, changes to systems and workflows, acknowledging and engaging reviewers, and building a sense of community. Peer review is a well-established part of academic publishing. Its function is to assess the quality of a manuscript before publication in a journal. Research involvement and Engagement is the world's first co-produced journal dedicated to developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement and engagement in health and social care research. Alongside traditional academic peer review we also involve other key stakeholders, including patients, carers, the public, policy makers, funders and practitioners. Following a recent survey looking at the motivations and feedback from patient reviewers in academic journals, we consider the key findings, reflect on what we already do and based on the feedback from the survey, we outline plans for future development. These plans include including improving training and guidance for reviewers, changes to systems and workflows, acknowledging and engaging reviewers, and building a sense of community. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 | 10 | 23% |
| Canada | 5 | 11% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Australia | 3 | 7% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 82% |
| Scientists | 5 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,075,275
of 24,803,011 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#85
of 470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,153
of 342,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,803,011 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 470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 342,485 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.