↓ Skip to main content

Scorpion incidents, misidentification cases and possible implications for the final interpretation of results

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, July 2016
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Scorpion incidents, misidentification cases and possible implications for the final interpretation of results
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40409-016-0075-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wilson R. Lourenço

Abstract

The aim of this contribution is to bring general information on the classification and in particular on the specific identification of scorpion species dangerous to humans. Several generic groups are taken into consideration, but the Neotropical genus Tityus C. L. Koch, 1836 is used as a major example. The content of this paper is mostly addressed to non-specialists whose research embraces scorpions in several fields such as venom toxins and public health. Although efforts have been made in the last 20 years to create better links between 'true scorpion experts' and non-specialists who use scorpions in their research, such exchanges had never led to a consensus among those different branches of biological and medical research. Consequently, many cases of species misidentification and even more serious errors concerning scorpion classification/identification are often present in the specialized literature. In conclusion, it is suggested here that the frequent cases of misidentification observed in several reports may induce mistakes in the final interpretation of results, leading only to more inefficacity in the treatment of problems caused by infamous scorpion species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 3%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,126,531
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#58
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,184
of 366,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 366,073 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them