You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Are comparative studies of extinction risk useful for conservation?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcel Cardillo, Erik Meijaard |
| Abstract |
Large-scale, comparative studies of species extinction risk have become common in conservation science, but their influence on conservation practice appears limited. The link between such studies and the practice of conservation breaks down in two key places. First, results of comparative studies are often ambiguous, inconsistent and difficult to translate into policy. Second, conservation as currently practiced emphasizes the rescue and protection of currently threatened biodiversity, whereas comparative studies are often better suited to a proactive approach that anticipates and prevents future species declines. Scientists should make their research more accessible by addressing the first issue. Policymakers and managers, in turn, could make better use of comparative studies by moving towards more preventative approaches to conservation planning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 12 | 4% |
| United States | 9 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 2% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 12 | 4% |
| Unknown | 268 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 83 | 26% |
| Researcher | 70 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 56 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 185 | 58% |
| Environmental Science | 62 | 19% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 16% |
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 01 August 2022.
All research outputs
#6,587,541
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#2,064
of 3,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,343
of 154,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Ecology & Evolution
#22
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 154,843 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.