↓ Skip to main content

Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers
Published in
Ambio, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0723-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anouk N’Guyen, Philipp E. Hirsch, Irene Adrian-Kalchhauser, Patricia Burkhardt-Holm

Abstract

Managing invasive species is a major challenge for society. In the case of newly established invaders, rapid action is key for a successful management. Here, we develop, describe and recommend a three-step transdisciplinary process (the "butterfly model") to rapidly initiate action for invasion management. In the framing of a case study, we present results from the first of these steps: assessing priorities and contributions of both scientists and decision makers. Both scientists and decision makers prioritise research on prevention. The available scientific knowledge contributions, however, are publications on impacts rather than prevention of the invasive species. The contribution of scientific knowledge does thus not reflect scientists' perception of what is essentially needed. We argue that a more objective assessment and transparent communication of not only decision makers' but also scientists' priorities is an essential basis for a successful cooperation. Our three-step model can help achieve objectivity via transdisciplinary communication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 27%
Environmental Science 19 24%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,828,686
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,417
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,737
of 285,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#29
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 285,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.