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 |
eCAMBer: efficient support for large-scale comparative analysis of multiple bacterial strains
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-65 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michal Wozniak, Limsoon Wong, Jerzy Tiuryn |
| Abstract |
Inconsistencies are often observed in the genome annotations of bacterial strains. Moreover, these inconsistencies are often not reflected by sequence discrepancies, but are caused by wrongly annotated gene starts as well as mis-identified gene presence. Thus, tools are needed for improving annotation consistency and accuracy among sets of bacterial strain genomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 | 4 | 29% |
| Germany | 2 | 14% |
| Norway | 1 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 10 | 71% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Hungary | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 36% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 43% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 March 2014.
All research outputs
#4,504,212
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,707
of 7,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,968
of 221,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#25
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 221,294 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.