↓ Skip to main content

evoText: A new tool for analyzing the biological sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 400)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
evoText: A new tool for analyzing the biological sciences
Published in
Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences, April 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2016.04.003
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grant Ramsey, Charles H. Pence, Ramsey, Grant, Pence, Charles H

Abstract

We introduce here evoText, a new tool for automated analysis of the literature in the biological sciences. evoText contains a database of hundreds of thousands of journal articles and an array of analysis tools for generating quantitative data on the nature and history of life science, especially ecology and evolutionary biology. This article describes the features of evoText, presents a variety of examples of the kinds of analyses that evoText can run, and offers a brief tutorial describing how to use it.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 7%
United States 1 7%
Unknown 13 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Other 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 20%
Social Sciences 2 13%
Computer Science 2 13%
Philosophy 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%
Other 6 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,052,440
of 11,340,041 outputs
Outputs from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#44
of 400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,224
of 275,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,340,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 400 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. 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 275,678 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.