↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of methods for measuring and assessing carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools. How do the accuracy and precision of current methods compare? A systematic review…

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Evidence, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 103)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 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
Comparison of methods for measuring and assessing carbon stocks and carbon stock changes in terrestrial carbon pools. How do the accuracy and precision of current methods compare? A systematic review protocol
Published in
Environmental Evidence, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/2047-2382-1-6
Authors

Gillian Petrokofsky, Hideki Kanamaru, Frédéric Achard, Scott J Goetz, Hans Joosten, Peter Holmgren, Aleksi Lehtonen, Mary CS Menton, Andrew S Pullin, Martin Wattenbach

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 234 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 25%
Student > Master 54 21%
Researcher 54 21%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Other 14 6%
Other 53 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 107 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 87 34%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 10%
Unspecified 20 8%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 8 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 23 April 2016.
All research outputs
#764,082
of 7,591,700 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Evidence
#36
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,707
of 142,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Evidence
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,591,700 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 103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 142,128 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.