| Title |
Positive citation bias and overinterpreted results lead to misinformation on common mycorrhizal networks in forests
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Ecology & Evolution, February 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41559-023-01986-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justine Karst, Melanie D. Jones, Jason D. Hoeksema |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 714 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 70 | 10% |
| France | 60 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 38 | 5% |
| Spain | 31 | 4% |
| Canada | 25 | 4% |
| Australia | 17 | 2% |
| Japan | 17 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 13 | 2% |
| Germany | 12 | 2% |
| Other | 90 | 13% |
| Unknown | 341 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 467 | 65% |
| Scientists | 221 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 22 | 3% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 203 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 16% |
| Researcher | 30 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 70 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 55 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 31 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 85 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1310. 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 17 May 2024.
All research outputs
#10,376
of 25,944,331 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#37
of 2,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328
of 494,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#2
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,944,331 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 2,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 149.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 494,411 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 92 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 97% of its contemporaries.