↓ Skip to main content

The vocabulary of microbiome research: a proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 1,154)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

6 news outlets
1 blog
1 policy source
129 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
3 Wikipedia pages
1 Redditor
1 video uploader


450 Dimensions

Readers on

1438 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
The vocabulary of microbiome research: a proposal
Published in
Microbiome, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40168-015-0094-5
Pubmed ID

Julian R. Marchesi, Jacques Ravel


The advancement of DNA/RNA, proteins, and metabolite analytical platforms, combined with increased computing technologies, has transformed the field of microbial community analysis. This transformation is evident by the exponential increase in the number of publications describing the composition and structure, and sometimes function, of the microbial communities inhabiting the human body. This rapid evolution of the field has been accompanied by confusion in the vocabulary used to describe different aspects of these communities and their environments. The misuse of terms such as microbiome, microbiota, metabolomic, and metagenome and metagenomics among others has contributed to misunderstanding of many study results by the scientific community and the general public alike. A few review articles have previously defined those terms, but mainly as sidebars, and no clear definitions or use cases have been published. In this editorial, we aim to propose clear definitions of each of these terms, which we would implore scientists in the field to adopt and perfect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 129 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,438 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 7 <1%
Unknown 1404 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 264 18%
Student > Master 229 16%
Researcher 206 14%
Student > Bachelor 199 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 93 6%
Other 201 14%
Unknown 246 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 354 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 251 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 158 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 115 8%
Environmental Science 52 4%
Other 188 13%
Unknown 320 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 136. 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 03 October 2021.
All research outputs
of 19,144,306 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 243,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,144,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.2. 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 243,942 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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