Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H.-D. (2011). Is interactive open access publishing able to identify high-impact submissions? A study on the predictive validity of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics by using percentile rank classes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(1), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2012). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wets, K., Weedon, D., & Velterop, J. (2003). Post-publication filtering and evaluation: Faculty of 1000. Learned Publishing, 16(4), 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539, Munich, Germany

    Lutz Bornmann

  2. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstr. 1, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany

    Robin Haunschild

Authors
  1. Lutz Bornmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robin Haunschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lutz Bornmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R. The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures. Scientometrics 102, 2187–2188 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1514-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation