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 |
A profusion of confusion in NGS methods naming
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.4558 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Hadfield, Jacques Retief |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 States | 15 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 11% |
| Germany | 4 | 6% |
| France | 4 | 6% |
| Mexico | 2 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Turkey | 1 | 2% |
| Montenegro | 1 | 2% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 34 | 54% |
| Members of the public | 28 | 44% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 27 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 34% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,003,643
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#1,301
of 5,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,672
of 452,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#22
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 452,597 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 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.