↓ Skip to main content

A Ranking System for Reference Libraries of DNA Barcodes: Application to Marine Fish Species from Portugal

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A Ranking System for Reference Libraries of DNA Barcodes: Application to Marine Fish Species from Portugal
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035858
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filipe O. Costa, Monica Landi, Rogelia Martins, Maria H. Costa, Maria E. Costa, Miguel Carneiro, Maria J. Alves, Dirk Steinke, Gary R. Carvalho

Abstract

The increasing availability of reference libraries of DNA barcodes (RLDB) offers the opportunity to the screen the level of consistency in DNA barcode data among libraries, in order to detect possible disagreements generated from taxonomic uncertainty or operational shortcomings. We propose a ranking system to attribute a confidence level to species identifications associated with DNA barcode records from a RLDB. Here we apply the proposed ranking system to a newly generated RLDB for marine fish of Portugal.

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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Zambia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 151 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 51 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 8 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 25 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 100 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 10%
Environmental Science 12 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 27 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,640,373
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#33,543
of 193,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,554
of 163,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#591
of 3,748 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 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 193,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 163,369 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,748 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.