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 |
Survey-based naming conventions for use in OBO Foundry ontology development
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-10-125 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Schober, Barry Smith, Suzanna E Lewis, Waclaw Kusnierczyk, Jane Lomax, Chris Mungall, Chris F Taylor, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Susanna-Assunta Sansone |
| Abstract |
A wide variety of ontologies relevant to the biological and medical domains are available through the OBO Foundry portal, and their number is growing rapidly. Integration of these ontologies, while requiring considerable effort, is extremely desirable. However, heterogeneities in format and style pose serious obstacles to such integration. In particular, inconsistencies in naming conventions can impair the readability and navigability of ontology class hierarchies, and hinder their alignment and integration. While other sources of diversity are tremendously complex and challenging, agreeing a set of common naming conventions is an achievable goal, particularly if those conventions are based on lessons drawn from pooled practical experience and surveys of community opinion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 73 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 38% |
| Computer Science | 20 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 24 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,719,788
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#398
of 7,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,191
of 93,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,236 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 94% 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 93,092 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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.