The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Timeline
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Sorted municipal solid waste ash as cement substitute: A study on paper ash and food waste ash
|
---|---|
Published in |
Case Studies in Construction Materials, July 2024
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03329 |
Authors |
Jiayi Lin, Chee Lok Yong, Fengyi Zhang, Tee How Tan, Hendrik Simon Cornelis Metselaar, Hilal El Hassan, Kim Hung Mo |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 7 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unspecified | 1 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 14% |
Student > Master | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Engineering | 3 | 43% |
Chemistry | 1 | 14% |
Unspecified | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 30 May 2024.
All research outputs
#3,531,473
of 26,012,510 outputs
Outputs from Case Studies in Construction Materials
#28
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,801
of 43,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Case Studies in Construction Materials
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,012,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 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 88% 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 43,312 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.