↓ Skip to main content

3-D dynamic rupture simulations of the 2016 Kumamoto, Japan, earthquake

Overview of attention for article published in Earth Planets and Space, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
3-D dynamic rupture simulations of the 2016 Kumamoto, Japan, earthquake
Published in
Earth Planets and Space, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40623-017-0733-0
Authors

Yumi Urata, Keisuke Yoshida, Eiichi Fukuyama, Hisahiko Kubo

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 57%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 79%
Psychology 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,667,993
of 12,088,915 outputs
Outputs from Earth Planets and Space
#219
of 317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,677
of 284,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Earth Planets and Space
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,088,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 317 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 284,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.