↓ Skip to main content

Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
Traditional knowledge of wild edible plants used in Palestine (Northern West Bank): A comparative study
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2008
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-4-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammed S Ali-Shtayeh, Rana M Jamous, Jehan H Al-Shafie', Wafa' A Elgharabah, Fatemah A Kherfan, Kifayeh H Qarariah, Isra' S Khdair, Israa M Soos, Aseel A Musleh, Buthainah A Isa, Hanan M Herzallah, Rasha B Khlaif, Samiah M Aiash, Ghadah M Swaiti, Muna A Abuzahra, Maha M Haj-Ali, Nehaya A Saifi, Hebah K Azem, Hanadi A Nasrallah

Abstract

A comparative food ethnobotanical study was carried out in fifteen local communities distributed in five districts in the Palestinian Authority, PA (northern West Bank), six of which were located in Nablus, two in Jenin, two in Salfit, three in Qalqilia, and two in Tulkarm. These are among the areas in the PA whose rural inhabitants primarily subsisted on agriculture and therefore still preserve the traditional knowledge on wild edible plants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Iraq 1 <1%
Unknown 136 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 22%
Student > Master 19 13%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 24 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 38%
Environmental Science 14 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 27 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,808,175
of 14,195,901 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#76
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,164
of 160,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,195,901 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 606 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 160,391 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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.