↓ Skip to main content

Erratum: Divergent functional isoforms drive niche specialisation for nutrient acquisition and use in rumen microbiome

Overview of attention for article published in The ISME Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Erratum: Divergent functional isoforms drive niche specialisation for nutrient acquisition and use in rumen microbiome
Published in
The ISME Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1038/ismej.2017.34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Rubino, Ciara Carberry, Sinéad M Waters, David Kenny, Matthew S McCabe, Christopher J Creevey

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,014,336
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from The ISME Journal
#3,104
of 3,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,849
of 325,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The ISME Journal
#63
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.