Altmetrics Analysis of Archivos de Bronconeumología From 2014 to 2018

Evaluación de la investigación científica: mejorando las políticas científicas en Latinoamérica

Este artículo busca identificar criterios e indicadores de evaluación científica, que permitan mejorar la forma en que las agencias de financiación, las instituciones académicas y otros grupos evalúan la calidad e impacto de la investigación. Para ello, se realiza una revisión bibliográfica, basada en artículos sobre políticas de evaluación de la investigación científica y agendas internacionales implementadas en los últimos años (principalmente en el Reino Unido, Estados Unidos, Australia, China y Latinoamérica). Los resultados indican que no existe un solo método de evaluación científica, ya que ningún indicador es absoluto. Cada investigación posee actores distintos que deben ser considerados y se debe valorar la investigación en su contexto. Se recomienda un sistema de evaluación mixto, que incorpore criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos, pero que reconozca los límites y alcances de ambos y también de cada disciplina.

Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, several controversial reports of the correlation between altmetric score and citations have been published (range: -0.2 to 0.8). We conducted a meta-analysis to provide an in-depth statistical analysis of the correlation between altmetric score and number of citations in the field of health sciences.

METHODS

Three online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed) were systematically searched, without language restrictions, from the earliest publication date available through February 29, 2020, using the keywords "altmetric," "citation," and "correlation." Grey literature was also searched via WorldCat, Open Grey, and Google Scholar (first 100 hits only). All studies in the field of health sciences that reported on this correlation were included. Effect sizes were calculated using Fisher's z transformation of correlations. Subgroup analyses based on citation source and sampling methods were performed.

RESULTS

From 27 included articles, 8 articles comprise several independent studies. The total sample size was 9,943 articles comprised of 35 studies. The overall pooled effect size was 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.26). Bivariate partial prediction of interaction between effect size, citation source, and sampling method showed a greater effect size with Web of Science compared with Scopus and Dimensions. Egger's regression showed a marginally nonsignificant publication bias (p = 0.055), and trim-and-fill analysis estimated one missing study in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

In health sciences, currently altmetric score has a positive but weak correlation with number of citations (pooled correlation = 0.19, 95% C.I 0.12 to 0.25). We emphasize on future examinations to assess changes of correlation pattern between altmetric score and citations over time.