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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Field methods for sampling tree height for tropical forest biomass estimation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Methods in Ecology and Evolution, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1111/2041-210x.12962 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin J. P. Sullivan, Simon L. Lewis, Wannes Hubau, Lan Qie, Timothy R. Baker, Lindsay F. Banin, Jerôme Chave, Aida Cuni‐Sanchez, Ted R. Feldpausch, Gabriela Lopez‐Gonzalez, Eric Arets, Peter Ashton, Jean‐François Bastin, Nicholas J. Berry, Jan Bogaert, Rene Boot, Francis Q. Brearley, Roel Brienen, David F. R. P. Burslem, Charles de Canniere, Markéta Chudomelová, Martin Dančák, Corneille Ewango, Radim Hédl, Jon Lloyd, Jean‐Remy Makana, Yadvinder Malhi, Beatriz S. Marimon, Ben Hur Marimon, Faizah Metali, Sam Moore, Laszlo Nagy, Percy Nuñez Vargas, Colin A. Pendry, Hirma Ramírez‐Angulo, Jan Reitsma, Ervan Rutishauser, Kamariah Abu Salim, Bonaventure Sonké, Rahayu S. Sukri, Terry Sunderland, Martin Svátek, Peter M. Umunay, Rodolfo Vasquez Martinez, Ronald R. E. Vernimmen, Emilio Vilanova Torre, Jason Vleminckx, Vincent Vos, Oliver L. Phillips |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 19 | 27% |
| United States | 6 | 9% |
| Brazil | 4 | 6% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 2 | 3% |
| Peru | 2 | 3% |
| Philippines | 1 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 53 | 76% |
| Scientists | 13 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 267 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 56 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 44 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 52 | 19% |
| Unknown | 44 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 89 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 75 | 28% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 5% |
| Engineering | 10 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 5% |
| Unknown | 61 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#848,841
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Methods in Ecology and Evolution
#273
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,672
of 457,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in Ecology and Evolution
#14
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 457,580 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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 74% of its contemporaries.