↓ Skip to main content

Resilience at the border: traditional botanical knowledge among Macedonians and Albanians living in Gollobordo, Eastern Albania

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Resilience at the border: traditional botanical knowledge among Macedonians and Albanians living in Gollobordo, Eastern Albania
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-10-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Pieroni, Kevin Cianfaglione, Anely Nedelcheva, Avni Hajdari, Behxhet Mustafa, Cassandra L Quave

Abstract

Ethnobotany in South-Eastern Europe is gaining the interest of several scholars and stakeholders, since it is increasingly considered a key point for the re-evaluation of local bio-cultural heritage. The region of Gollobordo, located in Eastern Albania and bordering the Republic of Macedonia, is of particular interest for conducting ethnobiological studies, since it remained relatively isolated for the larger part of the 20th Century and is traditionally inhabited by a majority of ethnic Macedonians and a minority of Albanians (nowadays both sharing the Muslim faith).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 34%
Environmental Science 10 14%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 12 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,013,852
of 17,095,353 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#119
of 664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,874
of 195,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,095,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 195,438 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.