Allocating funding for research often entails the review of the publications authored by a scientist or a group of scientists. For practical reasons, in many cases this review cannot be performed by a sufficient number of specialists in the core domain of the reviewed publications. In the meanwhile, each scientist reads thoroughly, on average, about 88 scientific articles per year, and the evaluative information that scientists can provide about these articles is currently lost. I suggest that aggregating in an online database reviews or ratings on the publications that scientists read anyhow can provide important information that can revolutionize the evaluation processes that support funding decisions. I also suggest that such aggregation of reviews can be encouraged by a system that would provide a publicly available review portfolio for each scientist, without prejudicing the anonymity of reviews. I provide some quantitative estimates on the number and distribution of reviews and ratings that can be obtained.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,710,411
of 23,511,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#112
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,499
of 247,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#12
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,511,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 247,503 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
