↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Mega-phylogeny approach for comparative biology: an alternative to supertree and supermatrix approaches

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, February 2009
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
412 Mendeley
citeulike
14 CiteULike
connotea
5 Connotea
Title
Mega-phylogeny approach for comparative biology: an alternative to supertree and supermatrix approaches
Published in
BMC Evolutionary Biology, February 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2148-9-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen A Smith, Jeremy M Beaulieu, Michael J Donoghue

Abstract

Biology has increasingly recognized the necessity to build and utilize larger phylogenies to address broad evolutionary questions. Large phylogenies have facilitated the discovery of differential rates of molecular evolution between trees and herbs. They have helped us understand the diversification patterns of mammals as well as the patterns of seed evolution. In addition to these broad evolutionary questions there is increasing awareness of the importance of large phylogenies for addressing conservation issues such as biodiversity hotspots and response to global change. Two major classes of methods have been employed to accomplish the large tree-building task: supertrees and supermatrices. Although these methods are continually being developed, they have yet to be made fully accessible to comparative biologists making extremely large trees rare.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 412 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 407 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 25 6%
Student > Bachelor 22 5%
Other 10 2%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 2%
Researcher 7 2%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 317 77%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Unspecified 4 <1%
Psychology 3 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 317 77%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#740,234
of 11,603,984 outputs
Outputs from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#271
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#721,630
of 10,952,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Evolutionary Biology
#271
of 2,223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,603,984 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 10,952,359 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.