↓ Skip to main content

Erratum to: Comparative analysis of fungal genomes reveals different plant cell wall degrading capacity in fungi

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 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 to: Comparative analysis of fungal genomes reveals different plant cell wall degrading capacity in fungi
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhongtao Zhao, Huiquan Liu, Chenfang Wang, Jin-Rong Xu

Abstract

The version of this article published in BMC Genomics 2013, 14: 274, contains 9 unpublished genomes (Botryobasidium botryosum, Gymnopus luxurians, Hypholoma sublateritium, Jaapia argillacea, Hebeloma cylindrosporum, Conidiobolus coronatus, Laccaria amethystina, Paxillus involutus, and P. rubicundulus) downloaded from JGI website. In this correction, we removed these genomes after discussion with editors and data producers whom we should have contacted before downloading these genomes. Removing these data did not alter the principle results and conclusions of our original work. The relevant Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6; and Table 1 have been revised. Additional files 1, 3, 4, and 5 were also revised. We would like to apologize for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 255 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 22%
Researcher 40 15%
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 46 17%
Unknown 43 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 140 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 19%
Environmental Science 8 3%
Unspecified 6 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 1%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 48 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,050,036
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#173
of 10,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,160
of 308,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#6
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,787 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 308,485 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.