↓ Skip to main content

Ticks in the wrong boxes: assessing error in blanket-drag studies due to occasional sampling

Overview of attention for article published in Parasites & Vectors, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Ticks in the wrong boxes: assessing error in blanket-drag studies due to occasional sampling
Published in
Parasites & Vectors, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/1756-3305-6-344
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew DM Dobson

Abstract

The risk posed by ticks as vectors of disease is typically assessed by blanket-drag sampling of host-seeking individuals. Comparisons of peak abundance between plots - either in order to establish their relative risk or to identify environmental correlates - are often carried out by sampling on one or two occasions during the period of assumed peak tick activity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 20%
Unspecified 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Professor 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 44%
Unspecified 8 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 December 2013.
All research outputs
#6,748,878
of 12,451,686 outputs
Outputs from Parasites & Vectors
#1,244
of 3,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,259
of 231,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Parasites & Vectors
#64
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,451,686 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,208 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 231,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 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 63% of its contemporaries.