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 |
Do empirical observations support commonly-held climate change range shift hypotheses? A systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Evidence, May 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13750-020-00194-9 |
| Authors |
Madeleine A. Rubenstein, Sarah R. Weiskopf, Shawn L. Carter, Mitchell J. Eaton, Ciara Johnson, Abigail J. Lynch, Brian W. Miller, Toni Lyn Morelli, Mari Angel Rodriguez, Adam Terando, Laura M. Thompson |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 3 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Uganda | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 31% |
| Environmental Science | 16 | 25% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
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 06 February 2022.
All research outputs
#4,624,170
of 25,617,409 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Evidence
#165
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,460
of 422,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Evidence
#10
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,617,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 422,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.