↓ Skip to main content

Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
603 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
759 Mendeley
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.
Title
Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science
Published in
Conservation Biology, January 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

TARA G. MARTIN, MARK A. BURGMAN, FIONA FIDLER, PETRA M. KUHNERT, SAMANTHA LOW‐CHOY, MARISSA MCBRIDE, KERRIE MENGERSEN

Abstract

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 759 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 <1%
Australia 7 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Finland 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 11 1%
Unknown 714 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 193 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 158 21%
Student > Master 105 14%
Other 39 5%
Student > Bachelor 39 5%
Other 107 14%
Unknown 118 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 226 30%
Environmental Science 219 29%
Social Sciences 24 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 24 3%
Engineering 24 3%
Other 80 11%
Unknown 162 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 22 April 2023.
All research outputs
#729,470
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#392
of 4,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,100
of 258,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#1
of 17 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 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. 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 258,282 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.