↓ Skip to main content

Viral taxonomy needs a spring clean; its exploration era is over

Overview of attention for article published in Virology Journal, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
14 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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.
Title
Viral taxonomy needs a spring clean; its exploration era is over
Published in
Virology Journal, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1743-422x-10-254
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian J Gibbs

Abstract

The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses has recently changed its approved definition of a viral species, and also discontinued work on its database of virus descriptions. These events indicate that the exploration era of viral taxonomy has ended; over the past century the principles of viral taxonomy have been established, the tools for phylogenetic inference invented, and the ultimate discriminatory data required for taxonomy, namely gene sequences, are now readily available. Further changes would make viral taxonomy more informative. First, the status of a 'taxonomic species' with an italicized name should only be given to viruses that are specifically linked with a single 'type genomic sequence' like those in the NCBI Reference Sequence Database. Secondly all approved taxa should be predominately monophyletic, and uninformative higher taxa disendorsed. These are 'quality assurance' measures and would improve the value of viral nomenclature to its users. The ICTV should also promote the use of a public database, such as Wikipedia, to replace the ICTV database as a store of the primary metadata of individual viruses, and should publish abstracts of the ICTV Reports in that database, so that they are 'Open Access'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
Sweden 1 2%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 2%
Unknown 53 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 55%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#6,473,633
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Virology Journal
#695
of 3,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,107
of 197,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virology Journal
#18
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 197,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 73% of its contemporaries.