↓ Skip to main content

‘Aerobic’ and ‘Anaerobic’ terms used in exercise physiology: a critical terminology reflection

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 608)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
149 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
425 Mendeley
Title
‘Aerobic’ and ‘Anaerobic’ terms used in exercise physiology: a critical terminology reflection
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40798-015-0012-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karim Chamari, Johnny Padulo

Abstract

With the 2015 European College of Sports Science (ECSS) meeting in Malmö just around the corner (in time, if not space), I thought I would recap on what was an exciting meeting in Amsterdam last July. As Deputy Editor of a journal that, at the time, was yet to be launched - the 19th ECSS meeting provided the perfect place to make acquaintance with new and potential Editorial Board members and to get a feel for the research landscape. Despite the name, ECSS is an International organisation, and the delegation was truly global. Aside from Europe - Japan, Australasia and South Africa all seemed to be particularly well represented among delegates; not to mention, Aspetar, of Qatar, was a major sponsor of the event, and two exchange symposia were co-hosted between the ECSS and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), and between ECSS and the Japanese Society of Physical Fitness & Sports Medicine (JSPFSM), respectively. The 4-day conference, held at the RAI Convention Centre, consisted of 4 plenary sessions and an honorary session, 36 invited symposia, 74 other oral sessions, 106 mini-oral sessions, and over 500 E-posters, covering the full gamut of sport and exercise science. As the programme's welcome message alluded to, I 'regretted that I had only two ears and two eyes'; however, in saying that, the vast coverage of the conference through social media provided one with no excuse for missing out on any information.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 425 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 419 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 78 18%
Student > Master 58 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 12%
Researcher 26 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 4%
Other 78 18%
Unknown 117 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 160 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 43 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 46 11%
Unknown 126 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 152. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#274,239
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#23
of 608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,021
of 278,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 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 608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 278,622 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.