↓ Skip to main content

Common sense: folk wisdom that ethnobiological and ethnomedical research cannot afford to ignore

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 763)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Common sense: folk wisdom that ethnobiological and ethnomedical research cannot afford to ignore
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-9-80
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas C Erren, Melissa S Koch, V Benno Meyer-Rochow

Abstract

Common sense [CS], especially that of the non-scientist, can have predictive power to identify promising research avenues, as humans anywhere on Earth have always looked for causal links to understand, shape and control the world around them. CS is based on the experience of many individuals and is thus believed to hold some truths. Outcomes predicted by CS are compatible with observations made by whole populations and have survived tests conducted by a plethora of non-scientists. To explore our claim, we provide 4 examples of empirical insights (relevant to probably all ethnic groups on Earth) into causal phenomena predicted by CS: (i) "humans must have a sense of time", (ii) "at extreme latitudes, more people have the winter blues", (iii) "sleep is a cure for many ills" and (iv) "social networks affect health and disease". While CS is fallible, it should not be ignored by science - however improbable or self-evident the causal relationships predicted by CS may appear to be.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 30 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 12 September 2023.
All research outputs
#573,321
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#9
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,893
of 317,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 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 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 317,893 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 99% of its contemporaries.