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 |
Understanding conflict among experts working on controversial species: A case study on the Australian dingo
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Science and Practice, February 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1111/csp2.12900 |
| Authors |
Valerio Donfrancesco, Benjamin L. Allen, Rob Appleby, Linda Behrendorff, Gabriel Conroy, Mathew S. Crowther, Christopher R. Dickman, Tim Doherty, Bronwyn A. Fancourt, Christopher E. Gordon, Stephen M. Jackson, Chris N. Johnson, Malcolm S. Kennedy, Loukas Koungoulos, Mike Letnic, Luke K.‐P. Leung, Kieren J. Mitchell, Bradley Nesbitt, Thomas Newsome, Carlo Pacioni, Justine Phillip, Brad V. Purcell, Euan G. Ritchie, Bradley P. Smith, Danielle Stephens, Jack Tatler, Lily M. van Eeden, Kylie M. Cairns |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 23% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 55% |
| Scientists | 8 | 36% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 42% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,810,148
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Science and Practice
#423
of 1,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,499
of 483,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Science and Practice
#24
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 483,937 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 53% of its contemporaries.