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 |
The giant eyes of giant squid are indeed unexpectedly large, but not if used for spotting sperm whales
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Ecology and Evolution, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2148-13-187 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan-E Nilsson, Eric J Warrant, Sönke Johnsen, Roger T Hanlon, Nadav Shashar |
| Abstract |
We recently reported (Curr Biol 22:683-688, 2012) that the eyes of giant and colossal squid can grow to three times the diameter of the eyes of any other animal, including large fishes and whales. As an explanation to this extreme absolute eye size, we developed a theory for visual performance in aquatic habitats, leading to the conclusion that the huge eyes of giant and colossal squid are uniquely suited for detection of sperm whales, which are important squid-predators in the depths where these squid live. A paper in this journal by Schmitz et al. (BMC Evol Biol 13:45, 2013) refutes our conclusions on the basis of two claims: (1) using allometric data they argue that the eyes of giant and colossal squid are not unexpectedly large for the size of the squid, and (2) a revision of the values used for modelling indicates that large eyes are not better for detection of approaching sperm whales than they are for any other task. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Tunisia | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 62 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 51% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,029,645
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#498
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,397
of 210,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#15
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 210,076 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.