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 |
Limitations, lack of standardization, and recommended best practices in studies of renewable energy effects on birds and bats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Biology, April 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1111/cobi.13457 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tara J. Conkling, Scott R. Loss, Jay E. Diffendorfer, Adam E. Duerr, Todd E. Katzner |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 4 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 11% |
| Colombia | 2 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 59% |
| Scientists | 9 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 30 | 23% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 43 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 34 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 25 | 19% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Energy | 3 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 50 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,382,217
of 25,301,208 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#1,266
of 4,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,502
of 379,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,301,208 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 379,858 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.