↓ Skip to main content

The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)a

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Direct, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 539)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
578 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others)a
Published in
Biology Direct, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-7-23
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harold S Bernhardt

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 578 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 551 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 117 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 107 19%
Student > Master 70 12%
Researcher 64 11%
Professor 26 4%
Other 99 17%
Unknown 95 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 158 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 137 24%
Chemistry 69 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 22 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 3%
Other 65 11%
Unknown 107 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 179. 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 11 April 2024.
All research outputs
#228,899
of 25,753,578 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#4
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,032
of 179,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,578 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 179,156 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them