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 |
Principles of metadata organization at the ENCODE data coordination center
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/database/baw001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eurie L. Hong, Cricket A. Sloan, Esther T. Chan, Jean M. Davidson, Venkat S. Malladi, J. Seth Strattan, Benjamin C. Hitz, Idan Gabdank, Aditi K. Narayanan, Marcus Ho, Brian T. Lee, Laurence D. Rowe, Timothy R. Dreszer, Greg R. Roe, Nikhil R. Podduturi, Forrest Tanaka, Jason A. Hilton, J. Michael Cherry |
| Abstract |
The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) Data Coordinating Center (DCC) is responsible for organizing, describing and providing access to the diverse data generated by the ENCODE project. The description of these data, known as metadata, includes the biological sample used as input, the protocols and assays performed on these samples, the data files generated from the results and the computational methods used to analyze the data. Here, we outline the principles and philosophy used to define the ENCODE metadata in order to create a metadata standard that can be applied to diverse assays and multiple genomic projects. In addition, we present how the data are validated and used by the ENCODE DCC in creating the ENCODE Portal (https://www.encodeproject.org/).Database URL: www.encodeproject.org. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 4 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| France | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 22 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 23% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,395,270
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation
#97
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,540
of 314,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Database: The Journal of Biological Databases & Curation
#6
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. 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 314,269 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.