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 |
Why we need a centralized repository for isotopic data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1701742114 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan N. Pauli, Seth D. Newsome, Joseph A. Cook, Chris Harrod, Shawn A. Steffan, Christopher J. O. Baker, Merav Ben-David, David Bloom, Gabriel J. Bowen, Thure E. Cerling, Carla Cicero, Craig Cook, Michelle Dohm, Prarthana S. Dharampal, Gary Graves, Robert Gropp, Keith A. Hobson, Chris Jordan, Bruce MacFadden, Suzanne Pilaar Birch, Jorrit Poelen, Sujeevan Ratnasingham, Laura Russell, Craig A. Stricker, Mark D. Uhen, Christopher T. Yarnes, Brian Hayden |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 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 | 23 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 13% |
| Chile | 6 | 7% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 2 | 2% |
| Tunisia | 1 | 1% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 55% |
| Scientists | 32 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 142 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 34% |
| Environmental Science | 32 | 22% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 16 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 28 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 20 January 2020.
All research outputs
#566,567
of 25,603,577 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#9,824
of 103,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,728
of 323,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#198
of 940 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,603,577 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 103,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. 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 323,479 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 940 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.