↓ Skip to main content

Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der aDNA-Forschung

Overview of attention for article published in NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, April 2017
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 (#19 of 227)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der aDNA-Forschung
Published in
NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00048-017-0168-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elsbeth Bösl

Abstract

aDNA studies are a cooperative field of research with a broad range of applications including evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archaeology. Scientists are using ancient molecules as source material for historical questions. Colleagues from the humanities are observing this with both interest and concern because aDNA research is affecting academic identities and both concepts of history and historiography. aDNA research developed in a way that can be described as a Hype Cycle (Chackie Fenn). Technological triggers such as Sanger Sequencing and the Polymerase Chain Reaction kicked off a multitude of experiments with ancient DNA during the 1980s and 1990s. Geneticists, microbiologists, anthropologists and many more euphorically joined a "molecule hunt". aDNA was promoted as a time machine. Media attention was enormous. As experiments and implementations began to fail and contamination was discovered to be a tremendous problem, media interest waned and many labs lost their interest. Some turned their disillusionment into systematic research into methodology and painstakingly established lab routines. The authenticity problem was first addressed by control oriented measures but later approached from a more cognitive theoretical perspective as the pitfalls and limits of aDNA became clearer. By the end of the 2000s the field reached its current plateau of productivity. Cross-disciplinary debates, conflicts and collaborations are increasing critical reflection among all participants. Historians should consider joining the field in a kind of critical friendship to both make the most of its possibilities and give an input from a constructivist perspective.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Student > Bachelor 4 31%
Student > Master 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 4 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 23%
Linguistics 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#4,347,194
of 24,619,747 outputs
Outputs from NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin
#19
of 227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,035
of 314,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,747 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 227 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 314,625 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 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.