↓ Skip to main content

Submarine Thermal Springs on the Galápagos Rift

Overview of attention for article published in Science, March 1979
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1042 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
355 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Submarine Thermal Springs on the Galápagos Rift
Published in
Science, March 1979
DOI 10.1126/science.203.4385.1073
Pubmed ID
Authors

John B. Corliss, Jack Dymond, Louis I. Gordon, John M. Edmond, Richard P. von Herzen, Robert D. Ballard, Kenneth Green, David Williams, Arnold Bainbridge, Kathy Crane, Tjeerd H. van Andel

Abstract

The submarine hydrothermal activity on and near the Galápagos Rift has been explored with the aid of the deep submersible Alvin. Analyses of water samples from hydrothermal vents reveal that hydrothermal activity provides significant or dominant sources and sinks for several components of seawater; studies of conductive and convective heat transfer suggest that two-thirds of the heat lost from new oceanic lithosphere at the Galápagos Rift in the first million years may be vented from thermal springs, predominantly along the axial ridge within the rift valley. The vent areas are populated by animal communities. They appear to utilize chemosynthesis by sulfur-oxidizing bacteria to derive their entire energy supply from reactions between the seawater and the rocks at high temperatures, rather than photosynthesis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 355 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 15 4%
Germany 4 1%
Australia 3 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 320 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 23%
Researcher 69 19%
Student > Master 61 17%
Student > Bachelor 47 13%
Unspecified 26 7%
Other 70 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 108 30%
Unspecified 41 12%
Environmental Science 34 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 6%
Other 41 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#548,868
of 12,986,263 outputs
Outputs from Science
#14,012
of 60,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,913
of 192,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#290
of 902 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,986,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 60,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 192,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 902 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 67% of its contemporaries.