↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
65 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.mr000016.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom Jefferson, Melanie Rudin, Suzanne Brodney Folse, Frank Davidoff

Abstract

Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Netherlands 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Unknown 169 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 15%
Other 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Master 16 9%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 28 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 34%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Psychology 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 38 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. 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 20 September 2021.
All research outputs
#341,516
of 22,069,339 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#622
of 12,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,531
of 263,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 474 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,069,339 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 263,068 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 474 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.