| Title |
An ontology approach to comparative phenomics in plants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Methods, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13007-015-0053-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anika Oellrich, Ramona L Walls, Ethalinda KS Cannon, Steven B Cannon, Laurel Cooper, Jack Gardiner, Georgios V Gkoutos, Lisa Harper, Mingze He, Robert Hoehndorf, Pankaj Jaiswal, Scott R Kalberer, John P Lloyd, David Meinke, Naama Menda, Laura Moore, Rex T Nelson, Anuradha Pujar, Carolyn J Lawrence, Eva Huala |
| Abstract |
Plant phenotype datasets include many different types of data, formats, and terms from specialized vocabularies. Because these datasets were designed for different audiences, they frequently contain language and details tailored to investigators with different research objectives and backgrounds. Although phenotype comparisons across datasets have long been possible on a small scale, comprehensive queries and analyses that span a broad set of reference species, research disciplines, and knowledge domains continue to be severely limited by the absence of a common semantic framework. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 | 12 | 67% |
| Japan | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 44% |
| Scientists | 8 | 44% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Israel | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 94 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 26% |
| Researcher | 22 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 49 | 46% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,639,078
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#130
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,769
of 256,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 256,499 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.