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 |
Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Evidence, March 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13750-022-00264-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Geoff Frampton, Paul Whaley, Micah Bennett, Gary Bilotta, Jean-Lou C. M. Dorne, Jacqualyn Eales, Katy James, Christian Kohl, Magnus Land, Barbara Livoreil, David Makowski, Evans Muchiri, Gillian Petrokofsky, Nicola Randall, Kate Schofield |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 Kingdom | 9 | 45% |
| Germany | 2 | 10% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 70% |
| Scientists | 4 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 30 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 35 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,164,531
of 25,147,320 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Evidence
#122
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,573
of 436,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Evidence
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,147,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 436,533 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.