↓ Skip to main content

Toward interoperable bioscience data

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Genetics, January 2012
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
12 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
50 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
285 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
532 Mendeley
citeulike
31 CiteULike
Title
Toward interoperable bioscience data
Published in
Nature Genetics, January 2012
DOI 10.1038/ng.1054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanna-Assunta Sansone, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Dawn Field, Eamonn Maguire, Chris Taylor, Oliver Hofmann, Hong Fang, Steffen Neumann, Weida Tong, Linda Amaral-Zettler, Kimberly Begley, Tim Booth, Lydie Bougueleret, Gully Burns, Brad Chapman, Tim Clark, Lee-Ann Coleman, Jay Copeland, Sudeshna Das, Antoine de Daruvar, Paula de Matos, Ian Dix, Scott Edmunds, Chris T Evelo, Mark J Forster, Pascale Gaudet, Jack Gilbert, Carole Goble, Julian L Griffin, Daniel Jacob, Jos Kleinjans, Lee Harland, Kenneth Haug, Henning Hermjakob, Shannan J Ho Sui, Alain Laederach, Shaoguang Liang, Stephen Marshall, Annette McGrath, Emily Merrill, Dorothy Reilly, Magali Roux, Caroline E Shamu, Catherine A Shang, Christoph Steinbeck, Anne Trefethen, Bryn Williams-Jones, Katherine Wolstencroft, Ioannis Xenarios, Winston Hide

Abstract

To make full use of research data, the bioscience community needs to adopt technologies and reward mechanisms that support interoperability and promote the growth of an open 'data commoning' culture. Here we describe the prerequisites for data commoning and present an established and growing ecosystem of solutions using the shared 'Investigation-Study-Assay' framework to support that vision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 532 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 37 7%
United Kingdom 13 2%
Germany 9 2%
Netherlands 7 1%
Canada 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Sweden 4 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Other 21 4%
Unknown 427 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 163 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 117 22%
Other 53 10%
Student > Master 38 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 28 5%
Other 90 17%
Unknown 43 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 196 37%
Computer Science 105 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 5%
Chemistry 18 3%
Other 78 15%
Unknown 61 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 126. 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 30 June 2020.
All research outputs
#198,049
of 18,057,469 outputs
Outputs from Nature Genetics
#461
of 6,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,360
of 225,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Genetics
#2
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,057,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 225,904 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 85 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.