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 |
A Comparison of Phylogenetic Network Methods Using Computer Simulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0001913 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven M. Woolley, David Posada, Keith A. Crandall |
| Abstract |
We present a series of simulation studies that explore the relative performance of several phylogenetic network approaches (statistical parsimony, split decomposition, union of maximum parsimony trees, neighbor-net, simulated history recombination upper bound, median-joining, reduced median joining and minimum spanning network) compared to standard tree approaches, (neighbor-joining and maximum parsimony) in the presence and absence of recombination. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 392 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 2% |
| Brazil | 8 | 2% |
| Portugal | 6 | 2% |
| Germany | 5 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 4% |
| Unknown | 340 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 124 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 79 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 46 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 24 | 6% |
| Professor | 23 | 6% |
| Other | 70 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 256 | 65% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 35 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 17 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 12 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 30 | 8% |
| Unknown | 37 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,226,793
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,442
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,673
of 81,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#91
of 309 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,511 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 78% 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 81,716 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 309 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.