↓ Skip to main content

Non-random decay of chordate characters causes bias in fossil interpretation

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
9 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
335 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Non-random decay of chordate characters causes bias in fossil interpretation
Published in
Nature, January 2010
DOI 10.1038/nature08745
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert S. Sansom, Sarah E. Gabbott, Mark A. Purnell

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 5%
United Kingdom 9 3%
Germany 3 <1%
Argentina 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 8 2%
Unknown 289 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 87 26%
Researcher 64 19%
Student > Bachelor 48 14%
Student > Master 40 12%
Professor 24 7%
Other 50 15%
Unknown 22 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 147 44%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 115 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 4%
Environmental Science 11 3%
Computer Science 4 1%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 32 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 67. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#637,258
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#25,724
of 98,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,230
of 172,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#55
of 518 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 172,765 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 518 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.