| Title |
Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9 |
| Authors |
Ben Marwick |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 13% |
| Germany | 4 | 13% |
| Australia | 2 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Hungary | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 63% |
| Scientists | 11 | 34% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 152 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 26% |
| Researcher | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 41 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 20% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 30 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#594,861
of 25,870,142 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#19
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,160
of 402,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 402,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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