↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness uncertainty may bias the decision of coal power transitions in China

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2024
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness uncertainty may bias the decision of coal power transitions in China
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2024
DOI 10.1038/s41467-024-46549-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xizhe Yan, Dan Tong, Yixuan Zheng, Yang Liu, Shaoqing Chen, Xinying Qin, Chuchu Chen, Ruochong Xu, Jing Cheng, Qinren Shi, Dongsheng Zheng, Kebin He, Qiang Zhang, Yu Lei

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 71%
Student > Master 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 5 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
#15,301,367
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#47,717
of 57,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,930
of 207,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1,153
of 1,668 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 207,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,668 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.