↓ Skip to main content

Causes of systematic over‐ or underestimation of low streamflows by use of index‐streamgage approaches in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Hydrological Processes, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Causes of systematic over‐ or underestimation of low streamflows by use of index‐streamgage approaches in the United States
Published in
Hydrological Processes, February 2011
DOI 10.1002/hyp.7976
Authors

Ken Eng, Julie E. Kiang, Yin‐Yu Chen, Daren M. Carlisle, Gregory E. Granato

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 45%
Researcher 5 25%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 12 60%
Engineering 3 15%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#8,432,679
of 25,183,822 outputs
Outputs from Hydrological Processes
#753
of 2,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,891
of 196,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hydrological Processes
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,183,822 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 196,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.