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 |
Different management strategies are optimal for combating disease in East Texas cave versus culvert hibernating bat populations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Science and Practice, August 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1111/csp2.106 |
| Authors |
Riley F. Bernard, Jonah Evans, Nathan W. Fuller, Jonathan D. Reichard, Jeremy T. H. Coleman, Christina J. Kocer, Evan H. Campbell Grant |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 States | 10 | 26% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 25 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 35 | 90% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 25% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 31% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,349,482
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Science and Practice
#204
of 1,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,348
of 356,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Science and Practice
#9
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 356,394 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.