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 |
Reply to Brook et al: No empirical evidence for human overkill of megafauna in Sahul
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1310440110 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephen Wroe, Judith H. Field, Michael Archer, Donald K. Grayson, Gilbert J. Price, Julien Louys, J. Tyler Faith, Gregory E. Webb, Iain Davidson, Scott D. Mooney |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Norway | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 23% |
| Professor | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 28% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 20% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,997,459
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#45,639
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,533
of 203,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#515
of 934 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 203,357 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 934 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.