↓ Skip to main content

Community annotation in biology

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, February 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
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
Community annotation in biology
Published in
Biology Direct, February 2010
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-5-12
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raja Mazumder, Darren A Natale, Jessica AE Julio, Lai-Su Yeh, Cathy H Wu

Abstract

Attempts to engage the scientific community to annotate biological data (such as protein/gene function) stored in databases have not been overly successful. There are several hypotheses on why this has not been successful but it is not clear which of these hypotheses are correct. In this study we have surveyed 50 biologists (who have recently published a paper characterizing a gene or protein) to better understand what would make them interested in providing input/contributions to biological databases. Based on our survey two things become clear: a) database managers need to proactively contact biologists to solicit contributions; and b) potential contributors need to be provided with an easy-to-use interface and clear instructions on what to annotate. Other factors such as 'reward' and 'employer/funding agency recognition' previously perceived as motivators was found to be less important. Based on this study we propose community annotation projects should devote resources to direct solicitation for input and streamlining of the processes or interfaces used to collect this input.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 17%
Brazil 4 8%
United Kingdom 3 6%
Germany 2 4%
Sweden 1 2%
France 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 30 58%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 13%
Other 5 10%
Professor 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 67%
Computer Science 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 5 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,988,829
of 10,202,788 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#238
of 544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,639
of 200,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,202,788 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 200,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.