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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Erratum to: Dry aging of beef; Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Animal Science and Technology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40781-016-0109-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dashmaa Dashdorj, Vinay Kumar Tripathi, Soohyun Cho, Younghoon Kim, Inho Hwang |
| Abstract |
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40781-016-0101-9.]. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 July 2016.
All research outputs
#4,836,328
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#13
of 190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,647
of 378,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science and Technology
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 190 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 378,729 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them