| Title |
Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10816-014-9235-6 |
| Authors |
Anna Collar, Fiona Coward, Tom Brughmans, Barbara J. Mills |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| Austria | 1 | 13% |
| Denmark | 1 | 13% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 246 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 81 | 32% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 18% |
| Researcher | 30 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 8% |
| Professor | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 14% |
| Unknown | 29 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 121 | 47% |
| Social Sciences | 69 | 27% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 37 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,956,212
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#110
of 370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,536
of 367,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 367,293 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.