Based on data from Altmetric.com. Altmetric is supported by Macmillan Science and Education, which owns Nature Publishing Group.

An editorial oversight has turned a report on fish pigmentation into one of the year's most talked-about papers. The study of poeciliid fishes, first published online in July by the journal Ethology (Z. W. Culumber et al. Ethology 120, 1090–1100; 2014), received scant attention until ecologist David Harris at the University of California, Davis, tweeted a screenshot of one of its pages, highlighting this phrase in parentheses: “Should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?” Harris added his own comment on Twitter: “Not sure how this made it through proofreading, peer review and copy editing.” In one of dozens of responses, Tim Elfenbein, managing editor of the journal Cultural Anthropology, tweeted: “Note to authors: you are ultimately responsible for the work that bears your name, no matter the level of editing.” See go.nature.com/3bswdt for more.