| Title |
The European Modern Pollen Database (EMPD) project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00334-012-0388-5 |
| Authors |
Basil A. S. Davis, Marco Zanon, Pamella Collins, Achille Mauri, Johan Bakker, Doris Barboni, Alexandra Barthelmes, Celia Beaudouin, Anne E. Bjune, Elissaveta Bozilova, Richard H. W. Bradshaw, Barbara A. Brayshay, Simon Brewer, Elisabetta Brugiapaglia, Jane Bunting, Simon E. Connor, Jacques-Louis de Beaulieu, Kevin Edwards, Ana Ejarque, Patricia Fall, Assunta Florenzano, Ralph Fyfe, Didier Galop, Marco Giardini, Thomas Giesecke, Michael J. Grant, Jöel Guiot, Susanne Jahns, Vlasta Jankovská, Stephen Juggins, Marina Kahrmann, Monika Karpińska-Kołaczek, Piotr Kołaczek, Norbert Kühl, Petr Kuneš, Elena G. Lapteva, Suzanne A. G. Leroy, Michelle Leydet, José Guiot, Susanne Jahns, Vlasta Jankovská, Stephen Juggins, Marina Kahrmann, Monika Karpińska-Kołaczek, Piotr Kołaczek, Norbert Kühl, Petr Kuneš, Elena G. Lapteva, Suzanne A. G. Leroy, Michelle Leydet, José Antonio López Sáez, Alessia Masi, Isabelle Matthias, Florence Mazier, Vivika Meltsov, Anna Maria Mercuri, Yannick Miras, Fraser J. G. Mitchell, Jesse L. Morris, Filipa Naughton, Anne Birgitte Nielsen, Elena Novenko, Bent Odgaard, Elena Ortu, Mette Venås Overballe-Petersen, Heather S. Pardoe, Silvia M. Peglar, Irena A. Pidek, Laura Sadori, Heikki Seppä, Elena Severova, Helen Shaw, Joanna Święta-Musznicka, Martin Theuerkauf, Spassimir Tonkov, Siim Veski, W. O. van der Knaap, Jacqueline F. N. van Leeuwen, Jessie Woodbridge, Marcelina Zimny, Jed O. Kaplan |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 3 | 2% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Estonia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Professor | 12 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 23% |
| Unknown | 24 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 41 | 26% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 35 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 8 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,161,505
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
#52
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,249
of 210,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 210,405 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 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them