| Title |
The wildlife snaring crisis: an insidious and pervasive threat to biodiversity in Southeast Asia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biodiversity and Conservation, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10531-017-1450-5 |
| Authors |
Thomas N. E. Gray, Alice C. Hughes, William F. Laurance, Barney Long, Anthony J. Lynam, Hannah O’Kelly, William J. Ripple, Teak Seng, Lorraine Scotson, Nicholas M. Wilkinson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 | 9 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 14% |
| Australia | 4 | 7% |
| Thailand | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 39 | 66% |
| Scientists | 15 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 249 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 249 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 41 | 16% |
| Researcher | 40 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 14% |
| Unknown | 73 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 72 | 29% |
| Environmental Science | 60 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 80 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 28 August 2022.
All research outputs
#451,677
of 25,359,594 outputs
Outputs from Biodiversity and Conservation
#45
of 2,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,500
of 333,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biodiversity and Conservation
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,359,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 333,204 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 33 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 93% of its contemporaries.