↓ Skip to main content

Citizen Science and Wildlife Disease Surveillance

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
Title
Citizen Science and Wildlife Disease Surveillance
Published in
EcoHealth, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10393-015-1054-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Becki Lawson, Silviu O. Petrovan, Andrew A. Cunningham

Abstract

Achieving effective wildlife disease surveillance is challenging. The incorporation of citizen science (CS) in wildlife health surveillance can be beneficial, particularly where resources are limited and cost-effectiveness is paramount. Reports of wildlife morbidity and mortality from the public facilitate large-scale surveillance, both in time and space, which would otherwise be financially infeasible, and raise awareness of incidents occurring on privately owned land. CS wildlife disease surveillance schemes benefit scientists, the participating public and wildlife alike. CS has been employed for targeted, scanning and syndromic surveillance of wildlife disease. Whilst opportunistic surveillance is most common, systematic observations enable the standardisation of observer effort and, combined with wildlife population monitoring schemes, can allow evaluation of disease impacts at the population level. Near-universal access to digital media has revolutionised reporting modalities and facilitated rapid and economical means of sharing feedback with participants. Here we review CS schemes for wildlife disease surveillance and highlight their scope, benefits, logistical considerations, financial implications and potential limitations. The need to adopt a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach to wildlife health surveillance is increasingly recognised and the general public can make a significant contribution through CS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 196 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%
Thailand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 190 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 17%
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 38 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 52 27%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 28 14%
Environmental Science 21 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 48 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 October 2022.
All research outputs
#13,140,342
of 23,507,888 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#457
of 711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,555
of 268,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,507,888 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 268,071 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.