↓ Skip to main content

Authors response on Schick et al. 2017 “An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bees; the value of a formal analysis of the data”. Environ Sci Eur (2017)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Authors response on Schick et al. 2017 “An experiment of the impact of a neonicotinoid pesticide on honey bees; the value of a formal analysis of the data”. Environ Sci Eur (2017)
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12302-016-0102-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Campbell, Mike Coulson, Keith Ward

Abstract

Whilst a formal statistical analysis of any experimental data is always preferable in principle, in the case of Pilling et al. (PLoS ONE 8:e77193, 2013), it is hard to see how the results of any formal analysis-including those provided by Schick et al.-could be considered reliable. Regardless of the issue of statistical analysis, there was a wealth of valuable and novel biological and chemical residue data generated under field conditions of use in Pilling et al., which when taken into consideration alongside other relevant available published data and information (i.e. expert judgement) demonstrated a low risk to honeybees from thiamethoxam when used as a seed treatment on oilseed rape. Indeed, similar conclusions have been reported in subsequent published honeybee field studies using thiamethoxam seed-treated oilseed rape, thus supporting the original conclusions of Pilling et al.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 44%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 19%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,042,019
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#284
of 586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,821
of 419,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 419,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.