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 |
Towards mainstreaming of biodiversity data publishing: recommendations of the GBIF Data Publishing Framework Task Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-12-s15-s1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tom Moritz, S Krishnan, Dave Roberts, Peter Ingwersen, Donat Agosti, Lyubomir Penev, Matthew Cockerill, Vishwas Chavan |
| Abstract |
Data are the evidentiary basis for scientific hypotheses, analyses and publication, for policy formation and for decision-making. They are essential to the evaluation and testing of results by peer scientists both present and future. There is broad consensus in the scientific and conservation communities that data should be freely, openly available in a sustained, persistent and secure way, and thus standards for 'free' and 'open' access to data have become well developed in recent years. The question of effective access to data remains highly problematic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Germany | 1 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 2% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 46 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 3% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 57 | 40% |
| Computer Science | 22 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 16 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 6% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 21 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,313,663
of 24,244,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#588
of 7,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,183
of 250,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#12
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,244,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 250,161 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.