↓ Skip to main content

Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 514)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
468 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10393-010-0317-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gail Emilia Rosen, Katherine F. Smith

Abstract

The global trade in illegal wildlife is a multi-billion dollar industry that threatens biodiversity and acts as a potential avenue for invasive species and disease spread. Despite the broad-sweeping implications of illegal wildlife sales, scientists have yet to describe the scope and scale of the trade. Here, we provide the most thorough and current description of the illegal wildlife trade using 12 years of seizure records compiled by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network. These records comprise 967 seizures including massive quantities of ivory, tiger skins, live reptiles, and other endangered wildlife and wildlife products. Most seizures originate in Southeast Asia, a recently identified hotspot for future emerging infectious diseases. To date, regulation and enforcement have been insufficient to effectively control the global trade in illegal wildlife at national and international scales. Effective control will require a multi-pronged approach including community-scale education and empowering local people to value wildlife, coordinated international regulation, and a greater allocation of national resources to on-the-ground enforcement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 468 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 6 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 444 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 116 25%
Student > Bachelor 93 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 14%
Researcher 60 13%
Unspecified 32 7%
Other 103 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 192 41%
Environmental Science 120 26%
Social Sciences 42 9%
Unspecified 41 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 13 3%
Other 60 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#660,323
of 13,444,619 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#36
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,837
of 210,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,444,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 210,349 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.