| Title |
Use of Trial Register Information during the Peer Review Process
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0059910 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sylvain Mathieu, An-Wen Chan, Philippe Ravaud |
| Abstract |
Evidence in the medical literature suggests that trial registration may not be preventing selective reporting of results. We wondered about the place of such information in the peer-review process. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 24% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 52% |
| Scientists | 8 | 32% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 40 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Professor | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 41% |
| Psychology | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |