Manuscript characteristics associated with the altmetrics score and social media presence: an analysis of seven spine journals

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies pertaining to spine trauma

PURPOSE

It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to share scientific literature via social media. Traditional bibliometrics have long been utilized to measure a study's academic impact, but they fail to capture the impact generated through social media sharing. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists.

METHODS

We identified the five highest-rated spine-specific and five highest-rated general orthopedic journals by Scopus CiteScore 2020. We then identified all the spine trauma studies across a 5-year span (2016-2020) within these journals and compared AAS with traditional bibliometrics using Independent t-tests and Pearson's correlational analyses.

RESULTS

No statistically significant relationships were identified between AAS and traditional bibliometrics for articles pertaining to spine trauma: Level of Evidence (R = - 0.02, p = 0.34), H-Index Primary Author (R =  < - 0.01, p = 0.50), H-Index Senior Author (R = - 0.04, p = 0.24), and Number of Citations (R = 0.01, p = 0.40). The top five articles by AAS include those pertaining to motorcycle injuries (AAS = 687), orthosis in thoracolumbar fractures (AAS = 199), golfing injuries (AAS = 166), smartphone-based teleradiology (AAS = 41), and auto racing injuries (AAS = 39).

CONCLUSION

The lack of overlap between these types of metrics suggests that AAS or similar alternative metrics should be used to measure an article's social impact. The social impact of an article should likewise be a factor in determining an article's overall impact along with its academic impact as measured by bibliometrics.

Does Reader Engagement with Neurosurgery Journal Websites Correlate with the Number of Citations Received by Articles?

BACKGROUND

Medicine has begun adapting to new information-sharing paradigms in the hyper-connected social media era. In this milieu, the role of journal websites in the dissemination of clinical and research information needs to be reevaluated.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore whether reader engagement with neurosurgical journal websites, reflected by the number of article views and downloads, correlated with the eventual number of citations received by the articles.

METHODS

The websites of all Medline indexed neurosurgical journals were screened to identify those that provided information regarding the number of abstract and full text views and downloads. Articles published in these journals between July 2010 and June 2011 were included in this analysis. Various article attributes were identified and the number of citations per article was obtained from Google Scholar. The impact factors of the selected journals for the year 2010 were obtained from the Journal Citation Reports.

RESULTS

Twenty-two journals that had published 2527 articles were finally included in this analysis. The number of abstract views, full-text views, and downloads all correlated strongly with the journal impact factors in 2010 as well as the eventual citations per article. The number of article downloads independently predicted the citations per article on multivariate analysis. Neurology India had significantly higher article views and downloads but lower citations per article than the other journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Readers were found to engage significantly with neurosurgical journal websites and therefore, open access to articles would lead to increased visibility of articles, resulting in higher citation rates.

The Top 100 Most Impactful Articles on the Achilles Tendon According to Altmetric Attention Score and Number of Citations

Background

Achilles tendon injuries often generate substantial discussion in the mainstream media. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) measures the online dialogue pertaining to Achilles tendon research that occurs outside scientific journals, which traditional citation-based metrics fail to capture.

Purpose

To characterize the top 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles and compare them with the 100 Achilles tendon articles with the highest AAS. A secondary goal was to gain an improved understanding of the online dissemination and interpretation of Achilles tendon research through this comparison.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

The Web of Science Clarivate database was queried to isolate the 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles, and the Altmetric database was queried to identify the Achilles tendon articles with the top 100 AAS values. Data elements were extracted for each article including study type, study topic, and geographic origin.

Results

The Web of Science Clarivate database search yielded 10,890 articles published between 1970 and 2021. The 100 most-cited articles were published in 35 journals, with the American Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The mean (±SD) number of citations was 214.5 ± 86.47. The most prevalent study type was laboratory (28.0%). The most prevalent study topic was treatment (41.0%). Of these articles, 72.0% were European. The Altmetric database search yielded 3810 articles published between 1957 and 2021. The AAS of the top 100 articles ranged from 37 to 476 with a mean of 98.17 ± 85.53. The selected articles were published in 39 journals, with the British Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The most prevalent study type was randomized controlled trial (25.0%). The most common study topic was treatment (40.0%). Of these articles, 46.0% were European.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that, although the scientific community remains committed to high-impact journals with articles backed by high citation numbers, there is an increasing opportunity to consume Achilles tendon literature through social media.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies published within the Surgeon Journal

Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have emerged as a promising tool for measuring the social impact of research, which is increasingly important in today's digital and social media-driven world. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. The purpose of this article was to retrospectively review articles published in the Surgeon Journal from 2003 to 2020 to compare AAS with bibliometric parameters using an Independent t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. There were statistically significant weakly positive relationships between AAS and sample size, number of reads, and number of citations. There was no statistically significant relationship between AAS and number of authors, H-index, or level of evidence. This study highlights the potential value of altmetrics by measuring the social impact of research as altmetrics can provide valuable information not captured by traditional metrics. It is currently unclear what the optimal balance of social and academic impact is in evaluating research impact and how altmetrics can be integrated into existing research frameworks.

Comparing Orthopaedic Randomized Control Trials Published in High-Impact Medical and Orthopaedic Journals

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic studies published in high-impact medical journals are often believed to have a high prevalence of negative or neutral results and possess methodological characteristics that may bias toward nonsurgical treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare study characteristics, methodologic quality, exposure, and outcome direction among orthopaedic randomized control trials (RCTs) published in high-impact medical and orthopaedic journals and to identify study attributes associated with greater impact.

METHODS

RCTs published between January 2010 and December 2020 in the five medical journals and 10 orthopaedic journals with the highest 5-year impact factors were analyzed. Inclusion criteria were RCTs reporting on orthopaedic surgical intervention compared with nonsurgical or less-invasive surgical procedures. Study characteristics, methodologic quality (Jadad scale), outcomes, and altmetric data were collected. Primary outcomes were categorized as positive (favoring surgical/more-extensive surgery), negative (favoring nonsurgical/less-extensive surgery), or neutral.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-eight RCTs were analyzed; 26 from medical and 102 from orthopaedic journals. Studies published in medical journals included more authors ( P < 0.001), larger sample sizes ( P < 0.001), more institutions ( P < 0.001), and more often received funding ( P < 0.001). The average Jadad scale did not significantly differ between journals ( P = 0.14). The direction of the primary study outcome did not differ between journals ( P = 0.22). Average AAS and annual citation rates were higher in RCTs published in medical journals ( P < 0.001). Publication in a medical journal was the only covariate associated with higher annual citation rates ( P < 0.001) and AAS ( P < 0.001) on multivariable analyses.

DISCUSSION

High-impact medical journals do not publish orthopaedic RCTs with negative or neutral findings at a rate that significantly differs from orthopaedic journals. However, the higher impact and digital coverage of the studies published in medical journals may disproportionally influence the practices of nonorthopaedic providers. Raising awareness of critical findings published in orthopaedic journals may be particularly important for improving healthcare policies and orthopaedic referral patterns for musculoskeletal problems.

Altmetric Analysis of Dermatology Manuscript Dissemination During the COVID-19 Era: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Alternative bibliometrics or altmetrics, is a measure of an academic article's impact on social media outlets, which is quantified by the Altmetric Attention score (AAS). Given a lack of data for altmetric trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a comprehensive, multivariable analysis of top dermatology manuscripts published during this time period.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess (1) the relationship between traditional bibiliometrics and Altmetrics and (2) factors associated with high AAS.

METHODS

All abstracted articles published in the top-5 (ranked by SCImago Journal Rankings) peer-reviewed dermatology journals published in 2021 were included in our study. We collected AAS as the dependent variable and categorical predictor variables included journal title, whether a conflict of interest existed, open access status, whether the article was related to COVID-19 or skin-of-color research, and the type of research (eg, clinical, basic science, review, etc). Numerical predictor variables consisted of the impact factor of journal, total citations, and number of authors. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

The relationship between AAS and citation number was significant by multivariable analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic (P<.001). Numerous factors, including studies related to COVID-19, whether the article was open access, title of the journal, and journal impact factor were also independently related to higher AAS (P<.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results validate the use of altmetrics as a complement to traditional bibliometrics, especially in times of widespread scientific interest. Despite existing in a complex realm of bibliometrics, there are also discernable patterns associated with higher AAS. This is especially relevant in the era of growing technologic importance and utility to assess the impact of scientific works within the general public.

The Author Impact Factor as a Metric to Evaluate the Impact of Neurosurgical Researchers

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the Author Impact Factor (AIF) as a useful metric and as a complement to the h-index among neurosurgical researchers.

METHODS

The 5-year AIF and h-index were compared among 3 groups of researchers: 1) the 100 most prolific of all time within general neurosurgical journals ("Experienced"), 2) the 100 most prolific during the 2015-2019 period within general neurosurgical journals ("Trending Group"), and 3) the 100 postgraduation year 7 neurosurgical residents with the highest h-index ("Amateur").

RESULTS

The Amateur group had a lower median h-index than the Experienced (6 vs. 55; P < 0.001) and Trending (6 vs. 43; P < 0.001) groups. The highest h-index of the Amateur group (24) was lower than the first quartile of the Experienced (46.25) and Trending (26.00) groups. The Amateur group had a lower median 5-year AIF than the Experienced (2.15 vs. 3.17; P < 0.001) and Trending (2.15 vs. 2.85; P = 0.02) groups. Unlike the h-index, the gap between the 5-year AIF distribution of the Amateur group and other groups was not profound. Although there was a positive correlation between the metrics in the 3 groups, they did not proxy for each other. For instance, while the h-index of some experienced authors that have not published recently was high, their AIFs were zero. Also, some Amateur authors published very impactful articles and had a high 5-year AIF. However, since their number of publications is inevitably low, their h-index were low.

CONCLUSIONS

The AIF provides intuitive and complementary information to the h-index regarding the research output of neurosurgical authors.

Journal Discipline Plays a Significant Role in Academic Attention But Not in Social Media Attention in the Peripheral Nerve Literature

Evaluating the impact of articles can be performed through bibliometric analysis or social media impact using the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). The purpose of this study was to report on the social media impact of peripheral nerve studies; how article demographic factors, such as journal specialty (hand, orthopedics, plastic surgery), affect AAS; and how AAS correlates with bibliometrics, namely citation number. While orthopedic journals received the highest academic attention, there was no significant difference in social media attention between journal groups. These findings suggest AAS may be useful to authors in deciding which journal in which to pursue publication. [Orthopedics. 202x;xx(x):xx-xx.].

Does an Author's Social Media Presence Affect Dissemination of Spine Literature?

OBJECTIVE

Our study assesses the impact of an author's social media presence on citation rates and readership of spine literature.

METHODS

Altmetric database was queried for spine-related articles between 2016-2021; top 100 by Altmetric Attention Score(AAS) were assessed. Public profile presence, number of followers, number of posts, and promotion of articles were assessed for Twitter/Instagram. Social media profiles were identified by searching for the author's name followed by "Twitter" or "Instagram" on Google.com or searching each platform. Descriptive statistics assessed social media use and attention metrics. Negative binomial regression assessed presence/promotion/number of followers/number of posts on Twitter/Instagram as predictors of Dimensions citation rates/AAS/Mendeley reader counts, while accounting for time passed since publication.

RESULTS

Twitter promotion was noted for 9.0% of articles and Instagram promotion for 1.0%. Mean numbers of Twitter and Instagram followers were 447.9±1406.1(range 0-9079) and 173.2±1097.1(range 0-10700). Mean numbers of Twitter and Instagram posts were 411.6±1210.5 and 18.4±96.4, respectively. Dimensions citations ranged from 0-641, AAS from 79-2257, and Mendeley readers from 2-1854. Following negative binomial regression, Instagram presence was identified as a significant predictor of Mendeley readers(p=0.043), number of Twitter posts was a significant predictor of AAS(p=0.008). Additionally, Twitter presence was identified as a negative predictor of Mendeley Readers(p=0.005) and Twitter promotion was identified as a negative predictor of AAS (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Activity on Twitter and Instagram may have variable associations with altmetrics of literature visibility and readership but with citation rates. Interestingly, presence/promotion on Twitter predicted less attention/readership, while Instagram presence predicted higher Mendeley readership.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

BACKGROUND

Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and Altmetric scores.

METHODS

Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies.

RESULTS

A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong.

CONCLUSION

Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review does not contain health-related outcomes. Therefore, it is not eligible for registration.

Social media in surgery: evolving role in research communication and beyond

PURPOSE

To present social media (SoMe) platforms for surgeons, how these are used, with what impact, and their roles for research communication.

METHODS

A narrative review based on a literature search regarding social media use, of studies and findings pertaining to surgical disciplines, and the authors' own experience.

RESULTS

Several social networking platforms for surgeons are presented to the reader. The more frequently used, i.e., Twitter, is presented with details of opportunities, specific fora for communication, presenting tips for effective use, and also some caveats to use. Details of how the surgical community evolved through the use of the hashtag #SoMe4Surgery are presented. The impact on gender diversity in surgery through important hashtags (from #ILookLikeASurgeon to #MedBikini) is discussed. Practical tips on generating tweets and use of visual abstracts are presented, with influence on post-production distribution of journal articles through "tweetorials" and "tweetchats." Findings from seminal studies on SoMe and the impact on traditional metrics (regular citations) and alternative metrics (Altmetrics, including tweets, retweets, news outlet mentions) are presented. Some concerns on misuse and SoMe caveats are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Over the last two decades, social media has had a huge impact on science dissemination, journal article discussions, and presentation of conference news. Immediate and real-time presentation of studies, articles, or presentations has flattened hierarchy for participation, debate, and engagement. Surgeons should learn how to use novel communication technology to advance the field and further professional and public interaction.

Factors associated with high Altmetric Attention Score in dermatology research

BACKGROUND

Alternative metrics are emerging scores to assess the impact of research beyond the academic environment.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse whether a correlation exists between manuscript characteristics and alternative citation metrics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This bibliometric analysis included original articles published in the five journals with the highest impact factors during 2019. We extracted the following characteristics from each record: journal, publication month, title, number of authors, type of institution, type of publication, research topic, number of references, financial support, free/open access status and literature citations. The main measure was the identification of variables of higher social attention (measured by the Altmetric Attention Score ≥25) using binary logistic regression. Model performance was assessed by the change in the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

A total of 840 manuscripts were included. The Altmetric scores across all five journals ranged from 0 to 465 (mean 12.51 ± 33.7; median 3). The most prevalent topic was skin cancer, and the study design was clinical science. The scientific journal (P < 0.001), the presence of conflicts of interest (OR 2.2 [95%CI 1.3-3.7]; P = 0.002) and open access status OR 3.2 [95%CI 1.6-6.7]; P = 0.002) were found as independent predictors of high Altmetric scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests an article´s social recognition may be dependent on some manuscript characteristics, thus providing useful information on the dissemination of dermatology research to the general public.

Altmetric Attention Score: Evaluating the Social Media Impact of Burn Research

Traditional measures of scholarly impact (i.e., impact factor, citation rate) do not account for the role of social media in knowledge dissemination. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) tracks the online sharing activity of articles on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. All 285 original scientific articles published in Journal of Burn Care & Research and Burns from January to December 2017 were obtained from official journal websites. Article characteristics extracted include: AAS; number of Twitter, Facebook, and news outlet mentions; subject of study and study design; number of citations; number of authors and academic institutions; and others. The average AAS for all articles was 6.1 (SD: 48; Range: 0 to 611) in which 156 (55%) of those had Twitter mentions. The mean AAS for Journal of Burn Care & Research and Burns were 7.7 (SD: 54; Range: 0 to 536) and 5.3 (SD: 45; Range: 0 to 611), respectively. There was a weak, positive correlation between AAS and citation count for all articles (ρ = 0.12; p = 0.049), and this finding was consistent for Journal of Burn Care & Research (ρ = 0.21; p = 0.039) and Burns (ρ = 0.15; p = 0.038) individually. The weak correlation between the two metrics supports that AAS and citation count capture the attention of different audiences. In addition, studies discussing skin grafting were associated with higher average AAS (β: 29 [95% CI: 4.2 to 54]; p = 0.022). Overall, our findings support using both AAS and traditional bibliometrics to assess article impact.