| Title |
Response to “Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo”
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Methods, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nmeth.4554 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sang-Tae Kim, Jeongbin Park, Daesik Kim, Kyoungmi Kim, Sangsu Bae, Matthias Schlesner, Jin-Soo Kim |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 13% |
| Germany | 1 | 13% |
| Spain | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 32% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
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 01 May 2019.
All research outputs
#2,209,218
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from Nature Methods
#2,288
of 5,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,534
of 334,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Methods
#45
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 334,281 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.