↓ 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 540)
  • 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
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
582 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 59 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 582 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 555 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 117 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 103 18%
Student > Master 72 12%
Researcher 64 11%
Professor 25 4%
Other 104 18%
Unknown 97 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 158 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 132 23%
Chemistry 71 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 22 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 3%
Other 70 12%
Unknown 109 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 180. 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 13 May 2024.
All research outputs
#228,968
of 25,861,751 outputs
Outputs from Biology Direct
#4
of 540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,027
of 179,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Direct
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,861,751 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 540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. 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 179,273 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