↓ Skip to main content

The Making of the NEAM Tsunami Hazard Model 2018 (NEAMTHM18)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Earth Science, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 1,819)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
The Making of the NEAM Tsunami Hazard Model 2018 (NEAMTHM18)
Published in
Frontiers in Earth Science, March 2021
DOI 10.3389/feart.2020.616594
Authors

Roberto Basili, Beatriz Brizuela, André Herrero, Sarfraz Iqbal, Stefano Lorito, Francesco Emanuele Maesano, Shane Murphy, Paolo Perfetti, Fabrizio Romano, Antonio Scala, Jacopo Selva, Matteo Taroni, Mara Monica Tiberti, Hong Kie Thio, Roberto Tonini, Manuela Volpe, Sylfest Glimsdal, Carl Bonnevie Harbitz, Finn Løvholt, Maria Ana Baptista, Fernando Carrilho, Luis Manuel Matias, Rachid Omira, Andrey Babeyko, Andreas Hoechner, Mücahit Gürbüz, Onur Pekcan, Ahmet Yalçıner, Miquel Canals, Galderic Lastras, Apostolos Agalos, Gerassimos Papadopoulos, Ioanna Triantafyllou, Sabah Benchekroun, Hedi Agrebi Jaouadi, Samir Ben Abdallah, Atef Bouallegue, Hassene Hamdi, Foued Oueslati, Alessandro Amato, Alberto Armigliato, Jörn Behrens, Gareth Davies, Daniela Di Bucci, Mauro Dolce, Eric Geist, Jose Manuel Gonzalez Vida, Mauricio González, Jorge Macías Sánchez, Carlo Meletti, Ceren Ozer Sozdinler, Marco Pagani, Tom Parsons, Jascha Polet, William Power, Mathilde Sørensen, Andrey Zaytsev

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 47%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Master 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 73%
Physics and Astronomy 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 April 2021.
All research outputs
#514,000
of 17,601,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Earth Science
#43
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,632
of 399,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Earth Science
#4
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,601,811 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 399,366 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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.