↓ Skip to main content

Do we still need supertrees?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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.
Title
Do we still need supertrees?
Published in
BMC Biology, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-10-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arndt von Haeseler

Abstract

The up-dated species level phylogeny for the carnivores using a supertree approach provides new insights into the evolutionary origin and relationships of carnivores. While the gain in biological knowledge is substantial, the supertree approach is not undisputed. I discuss the principles of supertree methods and the competitor supermatrix approaches. I argue that both methods are important to infer phylogenetic relationships.See research article http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/10/12.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Spain 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 198 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 24%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Other 15 6%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 15 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 142 61%
Environmental Science 26 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 6%
Computer Science 7 3%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 18 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,419,123
of 18,249,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#922
of 1,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,161
of 132,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,249,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 132,103 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 77% 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