↓ Skip to main content

Sharing and re-use of phylogenetic trees (and associated data) to facilitate synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2012
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 (#42 of 4,521)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
7 blogs
twitter
49 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
11 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Title
Sharing and re-use of phylogenetic trees (and associated data) to facilitate synthesis
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-5-574
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arlin Stoltzfus, Brian O'Meara, Jamie Whitacre, Ross Mounce, Emily L Gillespie, Sudhir Kumar, Dan F Rosauer, Rutger A Vos

Abstract

Recently, various evolution-related journals adopted policies to encourage or require archiving of phylogenetic trees and associated data. Such attention to practices that promote sharing of data reflects rapidly improving information technology, and rapidly expanding potential to use this technology to aggregate and link data from previously published research. Nevertheless, little is known about current practices, or best practices, for publishing trees and associated data so as to promote re-use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 12 9%
Brazil 4 3%
United Kingdom 4 3%
Germany 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 105 78%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 19%
Student > Master 22 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 7 5%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 10 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 74 55%
Computer Science 13 10%
Environmental Science 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 15 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 10 July 2020.
All research outputs
#542,673
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#42
of 4,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,883
of 200,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 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 4,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 200,779 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 97% of its contemporaries.