↓ Skip to main content

Comments on “Erroneous Model Field Representations in Multiple Pseudoproxy Studies: Corrections and Implications”

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Climate, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Comments on “Erroneous Model Field Representations in Multiple Pseudoproxy Studies: Corrections and Implications”
Published in
Journal of Climate, May 2013
DOI 10.1175/jcli-d-12-00065.1
Authors

Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Ammann

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Lecturer 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 38%
Arts and Humanities 2 25%
Environmental Science 1 13%
Psychology 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 January 2013.
All research outputs
#16,745,408
of 24,629,540 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Climate
#6,340
of 8,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,039
of 197,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Climate
#57
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,629,540 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 197,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.