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 |
A comprehensive evaluation of assembly scaffolding tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genome Biology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r42 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Hunt, Chris Newbold, Matthew Berriman, Thomas D Otto |
| Abstract |
Genome assembly is typically a two-stage process: contig assembly followed by the use of paired sequencing reads to join contigs into scaffolds. Scaffolds are usually the focus of reported assembly statistics; longer scaffolds greatly facilitate the use of genome sequences in downstream analyses, and it is appealing to present larger numbers as metrics of assembly performance. However, scaffolds are highly prone to errors, especially when generated using short reads, which can directly result in inflated assembly statistics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 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 | 21 | 28% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 13% |
| Germany | 6 | 8% |
| France | 5 | 7% |
| Canada | 4 | 5% |
| Spain | 3 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Sweden | 2 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 53 | 71% |
| Members of the public | 19 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 655 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 14 | 2% |
| Germany | 8 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 1% |
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| Sweden | 4 | <1% |
| Australia | 3 | <1% |
| France | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 27 | 4% |
| Unknown | 577 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 176 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 147 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 85 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 33 | 5% |
| Other | 110 | 17% |
| Unknown | 59 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 356 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 117 | 18% |
| Computer Science | 47 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 1% |
| Other | 44 | 7% |
| Unknown | 72 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#878,232
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Genome Biology
#586
of 4,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,323
of 236,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genome Biology
#15
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 236,916 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.