| Title |
The importance of sample size in marine megafauna tagging studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ecological Applications, July 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1002/eap.1947 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. M. M. Sequeira, M. R. Heupel, M.‐A. Lea, V. M. Eguíluz, C. M. Duarte, M. G. Meekan, M. Thums, H. J. Calich, R. H. Carmichael, D. P. Costa, L. C. Ferreira, J. Fernandéz‐Gracia, R. Harcourt, A.‐L. Harrison, I. Jonsen, C. R. McMahon, D. W. Sims, R. P. Wilson, G. C. Hays |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 | 17 | 17% |
| United States | 16 | 16% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 10% |
| Canada | 3 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Singapore | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 38 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 54 | 55% |
| Scientists | 41 | 41% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 278 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 56 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 54 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 9% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Unknown | 65 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 115 | 41% |
| Environmental Science | 50 | 18% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Unknown | 75 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. 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 25 July 2023.
All research outputs
#676,971
of 25,371,292 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#161
of 3,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,342
of 352,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#7
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,292 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 3,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 352,968 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 62 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 90% of its contemporaries.