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 |
Risk and efficacy of human‐enabled interspecific hybridization for climate‐change adaptation: response to Hamilton and Miller (2016)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Biology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/cobi.12678 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryan P Kovach, Gordon Luikart, Winsor H Lowe, Matthew C Boyer, Clint C Muhlfeld |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 | 15% |
| United States | 2 | 15% |
| Sweden | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 46% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 24% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 42 | 58% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 14% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 8% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,940,869
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,719
of 3,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,966
of 297,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 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 3,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 297,860 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.