| Title |
Assessing the Relevance of Herbarium Collections as Tools for Conservation Biology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Botanical Review, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12229-017-9188-z |
| Authors |
Neus Nualart, Neus Ibáñez, Ignasi Soriano, Jordi López-Pujol |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 11% |
| Colombia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 56 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 40% |
| Environmental Science | 29 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 1% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 61 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 September 2022.
All research outputs
#5,788,383
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Botanical Review
#52
of 309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,875
of 313,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Botanical Review
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 313,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.