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 |
Structured decision making as a conservation tool for recovery planning of two endangered salamanders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Nature Conservation, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.011 |
| Authors |
Katherine M. O’Donnell, Arianne F. Messerman, William J. Barichivich, Raymond D. Semlitsch, Thomas A. Gorman, Harold G. Mitchell, Nathan Allan, Danté Fenolio, Adam Green, Fred A. Johnson, Allison Keever, Mark Mandica, Julien Martin, Jana Mott, Terry Peacock, Joseph Reinman, Stephanie S. Romañach, Greg Titus, Conor P. McGowan, Susan C. Walls |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 58% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 3 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 43 | 41% |
| Environmental Science | 28 | 27% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,258,608
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Nature Conservation
#107
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,896
of 330,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Nature Conservation
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 330,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.