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
| Chapter title |
Leading a Successful iGEM Team.
|
|---|---|
| Chapter number | 19 |
| Book title |
Gene Synthesis
|
| Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/978-1-61779-564-0_19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Book ISBNs |
978-1-61779-563-3, 978-1-61779-564-0
|
| Authors |
Wayne Materi, Materi, Wayne |
| Abstract |
The International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) competition allows undergraduate teams to develop projects in synthetic biology within the context of a large, international Jamboree. Organizing and managing a successful iGEM team is an exercise in advanced agile project development. While many of the principles applicable to such teams are derived from management of agile software teams, iGEM presents several unique challenges. |
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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 28% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 February 2012.
All research outputs
#13,285,398
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#3,536
of 13,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,252
of 244,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#237
of 473 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 244,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 473 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.