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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Save the tree of life or get lost in the woods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biology Direct, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6150-5-44 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruben E Valas, Philip E Bourne |
| Abstract |
The wealth of prokaryotic genomic data available has revealed that the histories of many genes are inconsistent, leading some to question the value of the tree of life hypothesis. It has been argued that a tree-like representation requires suppressing too much information, and that a more pluralistic approach is necessary for understanding prokaryotic evolution. We argue that trees may still be a useful representation for evolutionary histories in light of new data. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 7% |
| Germany | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 4% |
| Denmark | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 54 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 38% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 20% |
| Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 46 | 61% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 9% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,841,217
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#121
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,916
of 93,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 93,083 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 5 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