You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Biology, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1111/cobi.12051 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
EDWARD T. GAME, PETER KAREIVA, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM |
| Abstract |
A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors' intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well-established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill-defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 15 | 18% |
| United States | 10 | 12% |
| New Zealand | 5 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 6% |
| Canada | 5 | 6% |
| Colombia | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 1% |
| Finland | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 30 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 57 | 69% |
| Scientists | 21 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 841 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 21 | 2% |
| Brazil | 13 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| Portugal | 5 | <1% |
| South Africa | 5 | <1% |
| Australia | 4 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 25 | 3% |
| Unknown | 755 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 215 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 168 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 121 | 14% |
| Other | 60 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 6% |
| Other | 137 | 16% |
| Unknown | 91 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 345 | 41% |
| Environmental Science | 301 | 36% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 26 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 2% |
| Engineering | 4 | <1% |
| Other | 31 | 4% |
| Unknown | 114 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 01 January 2020.
All research outputs
#691,989
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#368
of 4,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,689
of 214,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#2
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 214,168 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 95% of its contemporaries.