| Title |
The dragonfly delusion: why it is essential to sample exuviae to avoid biased surveys
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Insect Conservation, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10841-010-9281-7 |
| Authors |
Eva M. Raebel, Thomas Merckx, Philip Riordan, David W. Macdonald, David J. Thompson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 States | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| Brazil | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Malta | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 196 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 52 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 120 | 55% |
| Environmental Science | 59 | 27% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | <1% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 25 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,612,926
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Insect Conservation
#128
of 745 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,401
of 104,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Insect Conservation
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 745 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 104,152 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.