↓ Skip to main content

Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

Overview of attention for article published in Food Webs, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better
Published in
Food Webs, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002
Authors

Benjamin L. Allen, Lee R. Allen, Henrik Andrén, Guy Ballard, Luigi Boitani, Richard M. Engeman, Peter J.S. Fleming, Adam T. Ford, Peter M. Haswell, Rafał Kowalczyk, John D.C. Linnell, L. David Mech, Daniel M. Parker

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 32%
Student > Master 14 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 42%
Environmental Science 18 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 16 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,399,090
of 13,441,462 outputs
Outputs from Food Webs
#36
of 74 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,998
of 267,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Food Webs
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,441,462 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 267,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.