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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Extended Newick: it is time for a standard representation of phylogenetic networks
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-9-532 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriel Cardona, Francesc Rosselló, Gabriel Valiente |
| Abstract |
Phylogenetic trees resulting from molecular phylogenetic analysis are available in Newick format from specialized databases but when it comes to phylogenetic networks, which provide an explicit representation of reticulate evolutionary events such as recombination, hybridization or lateral gene transfer, the lack of a standard format for their representation has hindered the publication of explicit phylogenetic networks in the specialized literature and their incorporation in specialized databases. Two different proposals to represent phylogenetic networks exist: as a single Newick string (where each hybrid node is splitted once for each parent) or as a set of Newick strings (one for each hybrid node plus another one for the phylogenetic network). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 6% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 90 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 27 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 23% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 47 | 44% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 10% |
| Mathematics | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 April 2020.
All research outputs
#5,391,333
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,924
of 7,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,214
of 166,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#17
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 166,873 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.