↓ Skip to main content

Missing links: testing the completeness of host-parasite checklists

Overview of attention for article published in Parasitology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
53 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.
Article details
Title
Missing links: testing the completeness of host-parasite checklists
Published in
Parasitology, November 2015
DOI 10.1017/s0031182015001559
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Host-parasite checklists are essential resources in ecological parasitology, and are regularly used as sources of data in comparative studies of parasite species richness across host species, or of host specificity among parasite species. However, checklists are only useful datasets if they are relatively complete, that is, close to capturing all host-parasite associations occurring in a particular region. Here, we use three approaches to assess the completeness of 25 checklists of metazoan parasites in vertebrate hosts from various geographic regions. First, treating checklists as interaction networks between a set of parasite species and a set of host species, we identify networks with a greater connectance (proportion of realized host-parasite associations) than expected for their size. Second, assuming that the cumulative rise over time in the number of known host-parasite associations in a region tends toward an asymptote as their discovery progresses, we attempt to extrapolate the estimated total number of existing associations. Third, we test for a positive correlation between the number of published reports mentioning an association and the time since its first record, which is expected because observing and reporting host-parasite associations are frequency-dependent processes. Overall, no checklist fared well in all three tests, and only three of 25 passed two of the tests. These results suggest that most checklists, despite being useful syntheses of regional host-parasite associations, cannot be used as reliable sources of data for comparative analyses.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 55%
Environmental Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,954,723
of 27,264,936 outputs
Outputs from Parasitology
#1,925
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,840
of 299,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasitology
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,264,936 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 299,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.