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 |
Generic names in Magnaporthales
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
IMA Fungus, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.5598/imafungus.2016.07.01.09 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ning Zhang, Jing Luo, Amy Y. Rossman, Takayuki Aoki, Izumi Chuma, Pedro W. Crous, Ralph Dean, Ronald P. de Vries, Nicole Donofrio, Kevin D. Hyde, Marc-Henri Lebrun, Nicholas J. Talbot, Didier Tharreau, Yukio Tosa, Barbara Valent, Zonghua Wang, Jin-Rong Xu |
| Abstract |
The order Magnaporthales comprises about 200 species and includes the economically and scientifically important rice blast fungus and the take-all pathogen of cereals, as well as saprotrophs and endophytes. Recent advances in phylogenetic analyses of these fungi resulted in taxonomic revisions. In this paper we list the 28 currently accepted genera in Magnaporthales with their type species and available gene and genome resources. The polyphyletic Magnaporthe 1972 is proposed for suppression, and Pyricularia 1880 and Nakataea 1939 are recommended for protection as the generic names for the rice blast fungus and the rice stem rot fungus, respectively. The rationale for the recommended names is also provided. These recommendations are made by the Pyricularia/Magnaporthe Working Group established under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 3 | 30% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 23% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 9% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 46 | 56% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 11 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,290,934
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#26
of 253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,812
of 354,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 253 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 354,664 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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