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 |
Automated ensemble assembly and validation of microbial genomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-15-126 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergey Koren, Todd J Treangen, Christopher M Hill, Mihai Pop, Adam M Phillippy |
| Abstract |
The continued democratization of DNA sequencing has sparked a new wave of development of genome assembly and assembly validation methods. As individual research labs, rather than centralized centers, begin to sequence the majority of new genomes, it is important to establish best practices for genome assembly. However, recent evaluations such as GAGE and the Assemblathon have concluded that there is no single best approach to genome assembly. Instead, it is preferable to generate multiple assemblies and validate them to determine which is most useful for the desired analysis; this is a labor-intensive process that is often impossible or unfeasible. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 | 10 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Thailand | 1 | 5% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| China | 1 | 5% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 14 | 64% |
| Members of the public | 8 | 36% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 228 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 5% |
| Brazil | 4 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 200 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 72 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 15% |
| Unknown | 23 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 115 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 20 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 11% |
| Unknown | 25 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 28 May 2015.
All research outputs
#1,639,990
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#331
of 7,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,084
of 229,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#10
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,400 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 229,141 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.