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 |
Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Conservation Science and Practice, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1111/csp2.249 |
| Authors |
Matthew J. Selinske, Georgia E. Garrard, Emily A. Gregg, Alexander M. Kusmanoff, Lindall R. Kidd, Meghan T. Cullen, Michelle Cooper, William L. Geary, Melissa A. Hatty, Fern Hames, Sarah Kneebone, Emily M. McLeod, Euan G. Ritchie, Zoe E. Squires, Janelle Thomas, Madelaine A. W. Willcock, Sera Blair, Sarah A. Bekessy |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 62 | 36% |
| New Zealand | 4 | 2% |
| Canada | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Finland | 3 | 2% |
| Japan | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| South Africa | 2 | 1% |
| Kenya | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 13 | 8% |
| Unknown | 74 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 120 | 69% |
| Scientists | 44 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 4% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 131 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 47 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 21 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 12% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 52 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 173. 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 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#237,161
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Science and Practice
#28
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,545
of 430,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Science and Practice
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 430,198 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.