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 |
Identifying dominant environmental predictors of freshwater wetland methane fluxes across diurnal to seasonal time scales
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Global Change Biology, May 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1111/gcb.15661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara H. Knox, Sheel Bansal, Gavin McNicol, Karina Schafer, Cove Sturtevant, Masahito Ueyama, Alex C. Valach, Dennis Baldocchi, Kyle Delwiche, Ankur R. Desai, Eugenie Euskirchen, Jinxun Liu, Annalea Lohila, Avni Malhotra, Lulie Melling, William Riley, Benjamin R. K. Runkle, Jessica Turner, Rodrigo Vargas, Qing Zhu, Tuula Alto, Etienne Fluet‐Chouinard, Mathias Goeckede, Joe R. Melton, Oliver Sonnentag, Timo Vesala, Eric Ward, Zhen Zhang, Sarah Feron, Zutao Ouyang, Pavel Alekseychik, Mika Aurela, Gil Bohrer, David I. Campbell, Jiquan Chen, Housen Chu, Higo J. Dalmagro, Jordan P. Goodrich, Pia Gottschalk, Takashi Hirano, Hiroki Iwata, Gerald Jurasinski, Minseok Kang, Franziska Koebsch, Ivan Mammarella, Mats B. Nilsson, Keisuke Ono, Matthias Peichl, Olli Peltola, Youngryel Ryu, Torsten Sachs, Ayaka Sakabe, Jed P. Sparks, Eeva‐Stiina Tuittila, George L. Vourlitis, Guan X. Wong, Lisamarie Windham‐Myers, Benjamin Poulter, Robert B. Jackson |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Canada | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 32 | 29% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,641,945
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#4,161
of 6,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,348
of 463,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#105
of 134 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 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 463,382 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.