↓ Skip to main content

Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Meat Science, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
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.
Title
Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives
Published in
Meat Science, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maeve M. Henchion, Mary McCarthy, Virginia C. Resconi

Abstract

Informed by quality theory, this systematic literature review seeks to determine the relative importance of beef quality attributes from a consumer perspective, considering search, experience and credence quality attributes. While little change is anticipated in consumer ranking of search and experience attributes in the future, movement is expected in terms of ranking within the credence category and also in terms of the ranking of credence attributes overall. This highlights an opportunity for quality assurance schemes (QAS) to become more consumer focused through including a wider range of credence attributes. To capitalise on this opportunity, the meat industry should actively anticipate new relevant credence attributes and researchers need to develop new or better methods to measure them. This review attempts to identify the most relevant quality attributes in beef that may be considered in future iterations of QAS, to increase consumer satisfaction and, potentially, to increase returns to industry.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 12%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 8%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 60 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 72 33%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 15 7%
Engineering 10 5%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 75 34%

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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,837,213
of 22,067,443 outputs
Outputs from Meat Science
#991
of 1,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,702
of 395,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Meat Science
#15
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,067,443 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 395,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.