↓ Skip to main content

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 132)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
101 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
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
Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, November 2019
DOI 10.1186/s41073-019-0083-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly K. Grossetta Nardini, Janene Batten, Melissa C. Funaro, Rolando Garcia-Milian, Kate Nyhan, Judy M. Spak, Lei Wang, Janis G. Glover

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 17 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Professor 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 32%
Social Sciences 8 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 13 July 2022.
All research outputs
#586,829
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#25
of 132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,994
of 474,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 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 132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 75.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 474,402 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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