↓ Skip to main content

Fungal nomenclature evolving: changes adopted by the 19th International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen 2017, and procedures for the Fungal Nomenclature Session at the 11th International Mycological…

Overview of attention for article published in IMA Fungus, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Fungal nomenclature evolving: changes adopted by the 19th International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen 2017, and procedures for the Fungal Nomenclature Session at the 11th International Mycological Congress in Puerto Rico 2018
Published in
IMA Fungus, September 2017
DOI 10.5598/imafungus.2017.08.02.01
Pubmed ID
Authors

David L. Hawksworth, Tom W. May, Scott A. Redhead

Abstract

This article summarizes the key changes in the rules relating to the nomenclature of fungi made at the XIX International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen, China, in July 2017. Most significant was the decision to transfer decision-making on matters related only to the naming of fungi from International Botanical to International Mycological Congresses (IMCs). The rules relating to fungi are to be grouped together in a separate section of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The way in which the Fungal Nomenclature Session will operate at the upcoming IMC in Puerto Rico in 2018 is summarized and the timetable for new proposals is presented. In addition, approval for names included on lists of protected names to be protected against unlisted as well as known competing names were passed, as were some simplifications relating to the naming of pleomorphic fungi. From 1 January 2019, it will also be necessary to deposit details of lecto-, neo-, and epitypifications in one of the recognized repositories of fungal names in order for them to be validly published and to establish their priority. Various aspects relating to typifications were referred to a new Special Committee, with a separate Special Subcommittee charged with addressing the issue of using DNA sequences as types for all groups covered by the ICN. It is anticipated that the Shenzhen Code will be published in the first half of 2018.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 39%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 6%
Unknown 4 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#8,454,155
of 14,979,626 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#78
of 126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,848
of 319,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,979,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 319,338 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.