↓ Skip to main content

The Acoela: on their kind and kinships, especially with nemertodermatids and xenoturbellids (Bilateria incertae sedis)

Overview of attention for article published in Organisms Diversity & Evolution, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 474)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
The Acoela: on their kind and kinships, especially with nemertodermatids and xenoturbellids (Bilateria incertae sedis)
Published in
Organisms Diversity & Evolution, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13127-012-0112-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes G. Achatz, Marta Chiodin, Willi Salvenmoser, Seth Tyler, Pedro Martinez

Abstract

Acoels are among the simplest worms and therefore have often been pivotal in discussions of the origin of the Bilateria. Initially thought primitive because of their "planula-like" morphology, including their lumenless digestive system, they were subsequently dismissed by many morphologists as a specialized clade of the Platyhelminthes. However, since molecular phylogenies placed them outside the Platyhelminthes and outside all other phyla at the base of the Bilateria, they became the focus of renewed debate and research. We review what is currently known of acoels, including information regarding their morphology, development, systematics, and phylogenetic relationships, and put some of these topics in a historical perspective to show how the application of new methods contributed to the progress in understanding these animals. Taking all available data into consideration, clear-cut conclusions cannot be made; however, in our view it becomes successively clearer that acoelomorphs are a "basal" but "divergent" branch of the Bilateria.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Chile 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 88 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Professor 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 14%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,489,811
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from Organisms Diversity & Evolution
#46
of 474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,239
of 179,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Organisms Diversity & Evolution
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 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 474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 179,624 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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