The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures

Lutz Bornmann () and Robin Haunschild ()
Additional contact information
Robin Haunschild: Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research

Scientometrics, 2015, vol. 102, issue 3, No 21, 2187-2188

Abstract: Abstract We have used the F1000Prime data set to investigate the reception of expert opinions, which were published under their own DOI, in the scientific community (n p = 114,582 papers with n e = 149,119 expert opinions). F1000Prime is a post-publication peer review system in which important literature from the biomedical area is read and assessed by selected researchers. We have investigated the reception of the expert opinions with the help of data from the Mendeley reference manager. As our Mendeley investigation shows, we were only able to find Mendeley counts for 11 expert opinions. Thus, a total of only 11 users have saved an expert opinion in their reference manager.

Keywords: Mendeley; Altmetrics; Peer review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:102:y:2015:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1514-1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().