↓ Skip to main content

A historical approach to scorpion studies with special reference to the 20th and 21st centuries

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
A historical approach to scorpion studies with special reference to the 20th and 21st centuries
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1678-9199-20-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilson R Lourenço

Abstract

This work provides historical context about scorpion studies from the end of the 19th century to the present day. The content is mainly addressed to non-zoologists, working in research fields that embrace scorpion biology, notably to those working with venoms and toxins. The historical aspects described include academic professional scholars who worked on scorpion classification and general distribution patterns; and to a lesser extent, on studies of ecology and natural history. The aim is not to provide an exhaustive description of all scholars who in one way or another became involved with scorpions, but rather of those who greatly contributed during a given period to the research of these organisms. No critical analysis of the work of previous researchers is undertaken, but some comments are proposed to bring clarification on 'who's who'. Since a global consensus in relation to classification and/or distribution patterns has not been reached among modern experts, these different approaches are also presented without judgment. Consequently, distinct approaches remain open for discussion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#132
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,278
of 235,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 235,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.