↓ Skip to main content

Beef quality attributes: A systematic review of consumer perspectives

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 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, January 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.

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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 259 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 19%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 78 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 31%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 16 6%
Engineering 10 4%
Environmental Science 9 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 94 36%
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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Meat Science
#1,186
of 1,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,511
of 421,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Meat Science
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 1,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 421,246 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.