↓ Skip to main content

Response to Lisovski et al.

Overview of attention for article published in Current Biology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Response to Lisovski et al.
Published in
Current Biology, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry M. Streby, Gunnar R. Kramer, Sean M. Peterson, Justin A. Lehman, David A. Buehler, David E. Andersen

Abstract

Lisovski et al.[1] describe the widely recognized limitations of light-level geolocator data for identifying short-distance latitudinal movements, recommend that caution be used when interpreting such data, intimated that we did not use such caution and argued that environmental shading likely explained the Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) movements described in our 2015 report [2]. Lisovski et al.[1] conclude that the bird movements we reported could not be disentangled from estimation error in stationary animals caused by environmental shading. We argue that, to the contrary, these hypotheses can easily be disentangled because the premise that environmental shading caused synchronous and parallel error among geolocators is false. With their assertion that our location estimates could be biased by >3,500 km on a day with no observable local sources of shading, Lisovski et al.[1] have taken a position of incredulity toward all geolocator-based animal movement data published to date.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 28%
Student > Master 4 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 56%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Unspecified 1 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 6 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,325,219
of 14,916,807 outputs
Outputs from Current Biology
#6,153
of 10,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,456
of 360,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Biology
#137
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,916,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 360,274 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.