↓ Skip to main content

Trends and concepts in fern classification

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Botany, February 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
171 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 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
Trends and concepts in fern classification
Published in
Annals of Botany, February 2014
DOI 10.1093/aob/mct299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maarten J. M. Christenhusz, Mark W. Chase

Abstract

Throughout the history of fern classification, familial and generic concepts have been highly labile. Many classifications and evolutionary schemes have been proposed during the last two centuries, reflecting different interpretations of the available evidence. Knowledge of fern structure and life histories has increased through time, providing more evidence on which to base ideas of possible relationships, and classification has changed accordingly. This paper reviews previous classifications of ferns and presents ideas on how to achieve a more stable consensus.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 299 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Bachelor 42 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 13%
Student > Master 39 13%
Professor 18 6%
Other 54 17%
Unknown 77 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 139 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 9%
Environmental Science 19 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 3%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 22 7%
Unknown 87 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 29 July 2024.
All research outputs
#1,946,895
of 26,397,269 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Botany
#354
of 3,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,017
of 333,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Botany
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,397,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 333,223 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 95% of its contemporaries.