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 |
Response to Comment on “Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science, January 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1126/science.abm6987 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey S Pigati, Kathleen B Springer, Matthew R Bennett, David Bustos, Thomas M Urban, Vance T Holliday, Sally C Reynolds, Daniel Odess |
| Abstract |
Madsen et al. question the reliability of calibrated radiocarbon ages associated with human footprints discovered recently in White Sands National Park, New Mexico, USA. On the basis of the geologic, hydrologic, stratigraphic, and chronologic evidence, we maintain that the ages are robust and conclude that the footprints date to between ~23,000 and 21,000 years ago. Madsen et al. (1) question the veracity of calibrated radiocarbon ages used to constrain the antiquity of human trackways discovered recently at White Sands National Park (WHSA) Locality 2, New Mexico, USA (2). The ages were derived from seeds of the aquatic plant Ruppia cirrhosa, which they suggest may suffer from hard-water (or reservoir) effects, making them too old, potentially by thousands of years. We were well aware of this possibility, investigated it, and presented several lines of evidence that argued against such a problem. Here we respond to each of their four primary points. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 10 | 29% |
| Canada | 2 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 77% |
| Scientists | 8 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 2 | 33% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 33% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 2 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 05 October 2023.
All research outputs
#918,044
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from Science
#17,824
of 83,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,220
of 521,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#233
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 83,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 65.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 521,355 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 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.