Review badges
0 pre-pub reviews
1 post-pub reviews

On 2017 August 17 at 12:41:06 UTC the Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) detected and triggered on the short gamma-ray burst (GRB) 170817A. Approximately 1.7. s prior to this GRB, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory triggered on a binary compact merger candidate associated with the GRB. This is the first unambiguous coincident observation of gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation from a single astrophysical source and marks the start of gravitational-wave multi-messenger astronomy. We report the GBM observations and analysis of this ordinary short GRB, which extraordinarily confirms that at least some short GRBs are produced by binary compact mergers.


Goldstein, A.;  Veres, P.;  Burns, E.;  Briggs, M. S.;  Hamburg, R.;  Kocevski, D.;  Wilson-Hodge, C. A.;  Preece, R. D.;  Poolakkil, S.;  Roberts, O. J.;  Hui, C. M.;  Connaughton, V.;  Racusin, J.;  von Kienlin, A.;  Dal Canton, T.;  Christensen, N.;  Littenberg, T.;  Siellez, K.;  Blackburn, L.;  Broida, J.;  Bissaldi, E.;  Cleveland, W. H.;  Gibby, M. H.;  Giles, M. M.;  Kippen, R. M.;  McBreen, S.;  McEnery, J.;  Meegan, C. A.;  Paciesas, W. S.;  Stanbro, M.

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 4 authors
  • 1 reviewer
Publons score (from 1 score)
Web of Science Core Collection Citations
  • Abstract, title and references ● Is the aim clear? Yes ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? Yes ● Is the title informative and relevant? Yes ● Are the references: ● Relevant? Yes ● Recent? Yes ● Referenced correctly? Yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? Yes Introduction/ background ● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yes ● Is the research question clearly outlined? Yes ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? Yes Methods ● Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? Yes ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? To some Extent ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? Yes Results ● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yes ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yes ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? Yes ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? Yes ● Categories grouped appropriately? Yes ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? repetitive ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? Yes ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Yes Discussion and Conclusions ● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over interpreted? Yes ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? To some extent ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? Yes ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? Needs Future Research.

All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.