↓ Skip to main content

Save the tree of life or get lost in the woods

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, June 2010
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
citeulike
10 CiteULike
connotea
1 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
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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 6%
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 55 71%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Professor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 46 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 9%
Philosophy 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 10 13%
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
#925,029
of 8,963,105 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#79
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,025
of 193,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,963,105 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 193,501 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 7 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