↓ Skip to main content

Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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
Impact of e-publication changes in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (Melbourne Code, 2012) - did we need to “run for our lives”?
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-0961-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicky Nicolson, Katherine Challis, Allan Tucker, Sandra Knapp

Abstract

At the Nomenclature Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, Australia (IBC), the botanical community voted to allow electronic publication of nomenclatural acts for algae, fungi and plants, and to abolish the rule requiring Latin descriptions or diagnoses for new taxa. Since the 1st January 2012, botanists have been able to publish new names in electronic journals and may use Latin or English as the language of description or diagnosis. Using data on vascular plants from the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) spanning the time period in which these changes occurred, we analysed trajectories in publication trends and assessed the impact of these new rules for descriptions of new species and nomenclatural acts. The data show that the ability to publish electronically has not "opened the floodgates" to an avalanche of sloppy nomenclature, but concomitantly neither has there been a massive expansion in the number of names published, nor of new authors and titles participating in publication of botanical nomenclature. The e-publication changes introduced in the Melbourne Code have gained acceptance, and botanists are using these new techniques to describe and publish their work. They have not, however, accelerated the rate of plant species description or participation in biodiversity discovery as was hoped.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Master 5 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 48%
Social Sciences 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Linguistics 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,205,083
of 19,206,351 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#271
of 2,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,624
of 281,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,206,351 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 281,718 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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