↓ Skip to main content

Promoting Coordinated Development of Community-Based Information Standards for Modeling in Biology: The COMBINE Initiative

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
Promoting Coordinated Development of Community-Based Information Standards for Modeling in Biology: The COMBINE Initiative
Published in
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, February 2015
DOI 10.3389/fbioe.2015.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Hucka, David P. Nickerson, Gary D. Bader, Frank T. Bergmann, Jonathan Cooper, Emek Demir, Alan Garny, Martin Golebiewski, Chris J. Myers, Falk Schreiber, Dagmar Waltemath, Nicolas Le Novère

Abstract

The Computational Modeling in Biology Network (COMBINE) is a consortium of groups involved in the development of open community standards and formats used in computational modeling in biology. COMBINE's aim is to act as a coordinator, facilitator, and resource for different standardization efforts whose domains of use cover related areas of the computational biology space. In this perspective article, we summarize COMBINE, its general organization, and the community standards and other efforts involved in it. Our goals are to help guide readers toward standards that may be suitable for their research activities, as well as to direct interested readers to relevant communities where they can best expect to receive assistance in how to develop interoperable computational models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
United States 2 4%
Turkey 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 50 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 30%
Computer Science 12 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Engineering 5 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,497,574
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#305
of 7,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,259
of 256,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,169 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 256,820 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.