| Title |
Nature apps: Waiting for the revolution
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-015-0712-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Jepson, Richard J. Ladle |
| Abstract |
Apps are small task-orientated programs with the potential to integrate the computational and sensing capacities of smartphones with the power of cloud computing, social networking, and crowdsourcing. They have the potential to transform how humans interact with nature, cause a step change in the quantity and resolution of biodiversity data, democratize access to environmental knowledge, and reinvigorate ways of enjoying nature. To assess the extent to which this potential is being exploited in relation to nature, we conducted an automated search of the Google Play Store using 96 nature-related terms. This returned data on ~36 304 apps, of which ~6301 were nature-themed. We found that few of these fully exploit the full range of capabilities inherent in the technology and/or have successfully captured the public imagination. Such breakthroughs will only be achieved by increasing the frequency and quality of collaboration between environmental scientists, information engineers, computer scientists, and interested publics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 7 | 32% |
| Australia | 3 | 14% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 82% |
| Scientists | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 197 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 16% |
| Researcher | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 49 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 48 | 23% |
| Environmental Science | 44 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 14 | 7% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 61 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,257,029
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#200
of 1,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,041
of 294,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 294,312 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.