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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ten reasons why a sequence-based nomenclature is not useful for fungi anytime soon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
IMA Fungus, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.5598/imafungus.2018.09.01.11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marco Thines, Pedro W. Crous, M. Catherine Aime, Takayuki Aoki, Lei Cai, Kevin D. Hyde, Andrew N. Miller, Ning Zhang, Marc Stadler |
| Abstract |
The large number of species still to be discovered in fungi, together with an exponentially growing number of environmental sequences that cannot be linked to known taxa, has fuelled the idea that it might be necessary to formally name fungi on the basis of sequence data only. Here we object to this idea due to several shortcomings of the approach, ranging from concerns regarding reproducibility and the violation of general scientific principles to ethical issues. We come to the conclusion that sequence-based nomenclature is potentially harmful for mycology as a discipline. Additionally, a classification based on sequences as types is not within reach anytime soon, because there is a lack of consensus regarding common standards due to the fast pace at which sequencing technologies develop. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 9 | 23% |
| France | 2 | 5% |
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Malawi | 1 | 3% |
| Thailand | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 22 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 78% |
| Scientists | 8 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 117 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 19% |
| Researcher | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 51 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 11 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Unknown | 31 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 11 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,209,363
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#10
of 254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,074
of 344,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 344,432 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them