| Title |
Taxonomy of the order Mononegavirales: second update 2018
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Virology, January 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00705-018-04126-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Piet Maes, Gaya K. Amarasinghe, María A. Ayllón, Christopher F. Basler, Sina Bavari, Kim R. Blasdell, Thomas Briese, Paul A. Brown, Alexander Bukreyev, Anne Balkema-Buschmann, Ursula J. Buchholz, Kartik Chandran, Ian Crozier, Rik L. de Swart, Ralf G. Dietzgen, Olga Dolnik, Leslie L. Domier, Jan F. Drexler, Ralf Dürrwald, William G. Dundon, W. Paul Duprex, John M. Dye, Andrew J. Easton, Anthony R. Fooks, Pierre B. H. Formenty, Ron A. M. Fouchier, Juliana Freitas-Astúa, Elodie Ghedin, Anthony Griffiths, Roger Hewson, Masayuki Horie, Julia L. Hurwitz, Timothy H. Hyndman, Dàohóng Jiāng, Gary P. Kobinger, Hideki Kondō, Gael Kurath, Ivan V. Kuzmin, Robert A. Lamb, Benhur Lee, Eric M. Leroy, Jiànróng Lǐ, Shin-Yi L. Marzano, Elke Mühlberger, Sergey V. Netesov, Norbert Nowotny, Gustavo Palacios, Bernadett Pályi, Janusz T. Pawęska, Susan L. Payne, Bertus K. Rima, Paul Rota, Dennis Rubbenstroth, Peter Simmonds, Sophie J. Smither, Qisheng Song, Timothy Song, Kirsten Spann, Mark D. Stenglein, David M. Stone, Ayato Takada, Robert B. Tesh, Keizō Tomonaga, Noël Tordo, Jonathan S. Towner, Bernadette van den Hoogen, Nikos Vasilakis, Victoria Wahl, Peter J. Walker, David Wang, Lin-Fa Wang, Anna E. Whitfield, John V. Williams, Gōngyín Yè, F. Murilo Zerbini, Yong-Zhen Zhang, Jens H. Kuhn |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 18% |
| Unknown | 30 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 16% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 10 | 11% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 38 | 41% |
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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,417,224
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Virology
#348
of 4,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,813
of 445,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Virology
#3
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,355 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 445,860 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 94% of its contemporaries.