Report for: Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications

Title	Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
Published in	Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
DOI	10.1002/14651858.mr000003.pub2
Pubmed ID	17443627
Authors	Vittorio Demicheli, Carlo Di Pietrantonj
Abstract	Grant giving relies heavily on peer review for the assessment of the quality of proposals but the evidence of effects of these procedures is scarce.

View on publisher site Alert me about new mentions

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
Japan	2	22%
Canada	2	22%
Unknown	5	56%

Demographic breakdown

Type	Count	As %
Members of the public	8	89%
Scientists	1	11%

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country	Count	As %
United States	3	3%
Spain	2	2%
Germany	1	1%
United Kingdom	1	1%
Netherlands	1	1%
Sweden	1	1%
Belgium	1	1%
Unknown	77	89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status	Count	As %
Researcher	20	23%
Other	9	10%
Student > Master	9	10%
Student > Ph. D. Student	8	9%
Professor > Associate Professor	7	8%
Other	20	23%
Unknown	14	16%

Readers by discipline	Count	As %
Medicine and Dentistry	22	25%
Social Sciences	16	18%
Computer Science	8	9%
Psychology	6	7%
Engineering	4	5%
Other	11	13%
Unknown	20	23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 23 January 2023.

All research outputs

#647,800

of 23,578,176 outputs

Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews

#1,283

of 12,744 outputs

Outputs of similar age

#984

of 75,115 outputs

Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews

of 60 outputs

Altmetric has tracked 23,578,176 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 12,744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 75,115 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 60 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 91% of its contemporaries.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications

About this Attention Score

Mentioned by

Citations

Readers on

Twitter Demographics

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Mendeley readers

Geographical breakdown

Demographic breakdown

Attention Score in Context