| Title |
Setting temporal baselines for biodiversity: the limits of available monitoring data for capturing the full impact of anthropogenic pressures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep41591 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Baptiste Mihoub, Klaus Henle, Nicolas Titeux, Lluís Brotons, Neil A. Brummitt, Dirk S. Schmeller |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 128 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 Kingdom | 26 | 20% |
| United States | 18 | 14% |
| Spain | 6 | 5% |
| Sweden | 5 | 4% |
| Australia | 5 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 2% |
| Canada | 3 | 2% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 44 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 91 | 71% |
| Scientists | 32 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 228 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 12% |
| Unknown | 47 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 84 | 35% |
| Environmental Science | 76 | 32% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Engineering | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 3% |
| Unknown | 59 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 173. 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 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#237,201
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#2,787
of 142,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,144
of 430,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#73
of 3,977 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 142,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 430,802 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,977 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.