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 |
Bio.Phylo: A unified toolkit for processing, analyzing and visualizing phylogenetic trees in Biopython
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2105-13-209 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric Talevich, Brandon M Invergo, Peter JA Cock, Brad A Chapman |
| Abstract |
Ongoing innovation in phylogenetics and evolutionary biology has been accompanied by a proliferation of software tools, data formats, analytical techniques and web servers. This brings with it the challenge of integrating phylogenetic and other related biological data found in a wide variety of formats, and underlines the need for reusable software that can read, manipulate and transform this information into the various forms required to build computational pipelines. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 22% |
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| Cameroon | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 52% |
| Scientists | 11 | 48% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 53 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 102 | 48% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 40 | 19% |
| Computer Science | 18 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 34 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 29 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,766,268
of 25,116,143 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#325
of 7,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,529
of 176,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#5
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,116,143 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 7,653 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 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 176,616 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 101 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 96% of its contemporaries.