↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the validity of crowdsourced wildlife observations for conservation using public participatory mapping methods

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Conservation, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Assessing the validity of crowdsourced wildlife observations for conservation using public participatory mapping methods
Published in
Biological Conservation, November 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.016
Authors

Greg Brown, Clive McAlpine, Jonathan Rhodes, Daniel Lunney, Ross Goldingay, Kelly Fielding, Scott Hetherington, Marama Hopkins, Clare Manning, Mathew Wood, Angie Brace, Lorraine Vass

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 4 21%
Unspecified 4 21%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 6 32%
Environmental Science 4 21%
Computer Science 4 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,639,692
of 12,439,600 outputs
Outputs from Biological Conservation
#1,126
of 3,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,273
of 261,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Conservation
#46
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,439,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 261,628 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 55% of its contemporaries.