↓ Skip to main content

Using the Value of Information to improve conservation decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Reviews, October 2018
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
59 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Using the Value of Information to improve conservation decision making
Published in
Biological Reviews, October 2018
DOI 10.1111/brv.12471
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friederike C. Bolam, Matthew J. Grainger, Kerrie L. Mengersen, Gavin B. Stewart, William J. Sutherland, Michael C. Runge, Philip J. K. McGowan

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Unspecified 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 47%
Environmental Science 11 29%
Unspecified 6 16%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#414,606
of 13,110,606 outputs
Outputs from Biological Reviews
#98
of 964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,202
of 263,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Reviews
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,110,606 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 964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 263,972 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 72% of its contemporaries.