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 |
The Use of Phylogeny to Interpret Cross-Cultural Patterns in Plant Use and Guide Medicinal Plant Discovery: An Example from Pterocarpus (Leguminosae)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0022275 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis, Bente B. Klitgaard, Félix Forest, Louise Francis, Vincent Savolainen, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Julie A. Hawkins |
| Abstract |
The study of traditional knowledge of medicinal plants has led to discoveries that have helped combat diseases and improve healthcare. However, the development of quantitative measures that can assist our quest for new medicinal plants has not greatly advanced in recent years. Phylogenetic tools have entered many scientific fields in the last two decades to provide explanatory power, but have been overlooked in ethnomedicinal studies. Several studies show that medicinal properties are not randomly distributed in plant phylogenies, suggesting that phylogeny shapes ethnobotanical use. Nevertheless, empirical studies that explicitly combine ethnobotanical and phylogenetic information are scarce. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Mexico | 3 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 215 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 44 | 19% |
| Researcher | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 42 | 18% |
| Unknown | 45 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 114 | 49% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 10 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 5 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 10% |
| Unknown | 51 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#1,713,071
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#22,075
of 193,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,185
of 119,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#249
of 2,221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 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 193,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 119,124 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 2,221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.