↓ Skip to main content

Ten reasons why a sequence-based nomenclature is not useful for fungi anytime soon

Overview of attention for article published in IMA Fungus, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 121)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Master 10 13%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 16%
Environmental Science 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Energy 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 17 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 20 July 2018.
All research outputs
#860,862
of 14,330,171 outputs
Outputs from IMA Fungus
#4
of 121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,881
of 277,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age from IMA Fungus
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,330,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 121 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. 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 277,498 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.