High-throughput techniques based on restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RADseq) are enabling the low-cost discovery and genotyping of thousands of genetic markers for any species, including non-model organisms, which is revolutionizing ecological, evolutionary and conservation genetics. Technical differences among these methods lead to important considerations for all steps of genomics studies, from the specific scientific questions that can be addressed, and the costs of library preparation and sequencing, to the types of bias and error inherent in the resulting data. In this Review, we provide a comprehensive discussion of RADseq methods to aid researchers in choosing among the many different approaches and avoiding erroneous scientific conclusions from RADseq data, a problem that has plagued other genetic marker types in the past.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 19 February 2026.
All research outputs
#885,009
of 33,169,879 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Genetics
#410
of 3,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,175
of 436,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Genetics
#6
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,169,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 436,919 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
