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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reply to Ellis et al.: Human niche construction and evolutionary theory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1073/pnas.1609617113 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jon M. Erlandson, Melinda A. Zeder, Nicole L. Boivin, Alison Crowther, Tim Denham, Dorian Q. Fuller, Greger Larson, Michael D. Petraglia |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 27% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 6 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 9% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
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 11 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,273,093
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#34,483
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,441
of 363,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#503
of 907 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 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 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 363,612 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 907 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.