| Title |
Bioboxes: standardised containers for interchangeable bioinformatics software
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Giga Science, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13742-015-0087-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Belmann, Johannes Dröge, Andreas Bremges, Alice C. McHardy, Alexander Sczyrba, Michael D. Barton |
| Abstract |
Software is now both central and essential to modern biology, yet lack of availability, difficult installations, and complex user interfaces make software hard to obtain and use. Containerisation, as exemplified by the Docker platform, has the potential to solve the problems associated with sharing software. We propose bioboxes: containers with standardised interfaces to make bioinformatics software interchangeable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 | 17 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 12% |
| Germany | 3 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Norway | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 29 | 49% |
| Members of the public | 28 | 47% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 27% |
| Researcher | 26 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 37 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 17% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#812,384
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Giga Science
#96
of 1,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,084
of 291,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Giga Science
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 291,054 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.