Erratum: Micro-homology intermediates: RecA's transient sampling revealed at the single molecule level (Nucleic Acids Research (2021) 49 (1426-1435) DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1258)
Nucleic Acids Research, ISSN: 1362-4962, Vol: 49, Issue: 7, Page: 4197-null
2021
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Correction Description
The data DOI in this article (1) is incorrect. The authors wish to correct the Data Availability statement to: DATA AVAILABILITY Data supporting this work can be accessed via the University of Leeds repository: Https://doi.org/10.5518/945. This change does not affect the results, discussion and conclusions presented in the article. The published article has been updated.
Bibliographic Details
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know