Examining the Correlation between Altmetric Score and Citations in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Which Topics Drive Dissemination? Alternative Bibliometrics Analysis of the Highest-Ranking Articles in 3 Infectious Diseases Journals Before COVID-19

Dissemination of research is paramount to improving patient care. Historically, dissemination is reported in conventional bibliometrics. However, with the increased utilization of digital platforms for communication, alternative bibliometrics describe more real-time dissemination of information. This study documents dissemination of publication topics in infectious diseases journals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correlation Between Altmetric Scores and Citation Count in 4 High-Impact Plastic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) aims to determine the impact of research articles throughout the internet and social media outlets. The AAS is a weighted average of the interaction on platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and more.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the AAS and traditional bibliometrics across plastic surgery journals.

METHODS

Articles, number of citations (NOC), and H-index information in Annals of Plastic Surgery (APS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO), and Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) from 2017, 2018, and 2019 were queried with the Scopus Online Tool. AAS metrics were collected with the Altmetric Score Calculator Bookmarklet. Descriptive statistics, Spearman rank-correlation analyses, and analyses of variance were performed to measure associations between NOC and AAS.

RESULTS

A total of 3612 articles were analyzed. NOC was weakly correlated with AAS in APS, PRS GO, and ASJ, and moderately correlated with AAS in PRS. NOC was weakly correlated with Twitter mentions in APS, PRS GO, and ASJ, and moderately correlated in PRS. NOC was weakly correlated with news outlet reporting. The H-index of the first author showed more significant correlations with the AAS than the H-index of the last author.

CONCLUSIONS

NOC and H-index of the first author correlated with AAS in the plastic surgery literature, suggesting AAS may be a useful adjunct to traditional bibliometrics when evaluating the impact and reach of peer-reviewed articles.

Twitter Buzz and Citations: Who's Tweeting Matters for Plastic Surgery Literature

Background

Plastic surgery and social media have become inextricably linked through patient procurement, practice growth, and academic exposure. Other surgical fields have demonstrated that tweeting is positively correlated with increased citations. This study aimed to elucidate the effect of Twitter on traditional bibliometrics in plastic surgery and parse out the kinds of tweets that are most correlated with citations.

Methods

Articles from May to October of 2018 from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal were analyzed to determine the citation count, number and backgrounds of Twitter users tweeting about the article, and total tweets. Multiple linear regression was performed to correlate these variables to citation count.

Results

A total of 369 articles were analyzed. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had significantly more average tweets per article compared to Aesthetic Surgery Journal (21.8 versus 10.2, P < 0.001), Additionally, a number of tweets (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and reaching more total followers (r = 0.48, P < 0.001) were both positively correlated with citations. Multiple linear regression demonstrated that tweets from self-identified scientists were positively correlated with citations (r = 0.99, P = 0.001). Tweets from science communicators had no correlation with citations (r = -0.012, P = 0.726). Tweets coming domestically from the country of the author were also associated with more citations (r = 0.164, P = 0.013).

Conclusions

Twitter activity, including the number of followers reached, for an article is positively correlated with citations. Interestingly, the kind of person tweeting affected the citations as well. Domestic tweets and those from scientists were associated with more citations. This implies that Twitter can be an effective form of academic dissemination, provided the "right" Twitter users are promoting the article.

Promoting Publications Through Plastic Surgery Journal Instagram Accounts: Is It Worth It?

PURPOSE

Journals are increasingly using social media to increase article engagement. We aim to determine the impact of Instagram promotion on, and identify social media tools that effectively enhance, plastic surgery article engagement and impact.

METHODS

Instagram accounts for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery were reviewed for posts published by February 8, 2022. Open access journal articles were excluded. Post caption word count and number of likes, tagged accounts, and hashtags were recorded. Inclusion of videos, article links, or author introductions was noted. All articles from journal issues published between the dates of the first and last posts promoting articles were reviewed. Altmetric data approximated article engagement. Citation numbers from the National Institutes of Health iCite tool approximated impact. Differences in engagement and impact of articles with and without Instagram promotion were compared by Mann-Whitney U tests. Univariate and multivariable regressions identified factors predictive of more engagement (Altmetric Attention Score, ≥5) and citations (≥7).

RESULTS

A total of 5037 articles were included, with 675 (13.4%) promoted on Instagram. Of posts featuring articles, 274 (40.6%) included videos, 469 (69.5%) included article links, and 123 included (18.2%) author introductions. Promoted articles had higher median Altmetric Attention Scores and citations (P < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, using more hashtags predicted higher article Altmetric Attention Scores (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; P = 0.002) and more citations (OR, 1.90; P < 0.001). Including article links (OR, 3.52; P < 0.001) and tagging more accounts (OR, 1.64; P = 0.022) predicted higher Altmetric Attention Scores. Including author introductions negatively predicted Altmetric Attention Scores (OR, 0.46; P < 0.001) and citations (OR, 0.65; P = 0.047). Caption word count had no significant impact on article engagement or impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Instagram promotion increases plastic surgery article engagement and impact. Journals should use more hashtags, tag more accounts, and include manuscript links to increase article metrics. We recommend that authors promote on journal social media to maximize article reach, engagement, and citations, which positively impacts research productivity with minimal additional effort in designing Instagram content.

Altmetric Analysis of the Most Mentioned Articles Online in the Contemporary Craniofacial Surgery Literature

As online media acquires increased utilization as a means of disseminating scientific research, Altmetric analyses are useful to identify socially impactful publications and their characteristics. Accordingly, the objective of this investigation was to determine the most mentioned articles online regarding craniofacial surgery and compare these articles with their most cited counterparts. Using the Web of Science database, 7097 craniofacial surgery publications were identified. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and average citations per year (ACpY) were extracted, and articles were ranked by their social and scientific impact. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational analyses were performed to examine characteristics including AAS, ACpY, country of origin, journal, open access (OA) status, publication year, study design, and topic. The average AAS of the 50 most mentioned articles was 83.68 (SD±107.40), and the average citation count of the 50 most cited articles was 76.38 (SD±35.15). OA status was significantly more prevalent among the most mentioned articles (24.0%) relative to all articles (10.72%) and the most cited articles (4.0%). The most mentioned and the most cited articles primarily originated from the United States (64.0% and 38.0%, respectively), discussed topics related to the medical and surgical management of patients (48.0% and 58.0%, respectively), and were systematic reviews (16.0% and 28.0%, respectively). However, there was significantly more geographic diversity in the latter cohort. In summary, this comparative examination reveals important differences between the most mentioned and most cited articles, highlighting the distinct utility of AAS and citation count when evaluating research impact.

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.].

Research Promotion is Associated with Broader Influence and Higher Impact of Plastic Surgery Publications

BACKGROUND

Social media has altered the mechanisms by which published research is disseminated and accessed. The objective of this study was to measure the effect of promotion on research article dissemination, influence, and impact in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

METHODS

All articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from January 1, 2016-December 31, 2018 were obtained and reviewed to determine inclusion/exclusion and for the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), citations, relative citation rate (RCR), and 16 unique promotional tags (journal club, editor's pick, press release, patient safety, etc.) as indexed on the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery website. 1,502 articles were included in the analysis. Statistical analysis was completed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlations, and Student t-tests where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of p≤0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 637 articles (42.4%) had a promotional tag, while 252 (16.8%) had multiple tags. Articles with promotional tags had higher AAS (30.35 vs 8.22; p<0.001), more citations (11.96 vs 8.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (2.97 vs 2.06; p<0.001) compared to articles without a tag. Articles with multiple tags had higher AAS (50.17 vs 17.39; p<0.001), more citations (15.78 vs 9.47; p<0.001), and a higher RCR (3.67 vs 2.51; p<0.001) compared to articles with only one tag. As the number of tags increased for an article, AAS (p<0.001), citation count (p<0.001), and RCR (p<0.001) likewise increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis strongly suggests that promotion of research articles is associated with significantly wider dissemination, broader visibility, and more subsequent citations in the literature.

Correlation Between Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations for Articles Published in High-Impact Factor Ophthalmology Journals From 2018 to 2019

Importance

The Altmetric attention score (AAS) provides new information to gauge the impact of a research article not found through typical metrics, such as impact factor or citation counts.

Objective

To explore the association between AAS and common impact markers among high-impact ophthalmology journals from 2018 to 2019.

Design, Setting, and Participants

All articles published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), JAMA Ophthalmology (JAMAO), and Ophthalmology (OPH) from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, were collected for this cross-sectional study. Excluded articles were those missing Altmetric data at the time of data collection. The AAS and associated social media impact for each article were collected with the AAS calculator bookmarklet. Spearman rank correlation analyses and analysis of variance tests were conducted to assess differences in various metrics between AJO, JAMAO, and OPH. The study included articles published of all document types (article, conference paper, editorial, erratum, letter, note, retracted, review, and short survey) and access status (open access and not open access).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The correlation between citation counts and Altmetric variables including AAS.

Results

A total of 2467 articles were published in the study period. There were 351 articles excluded owing to missing Altmetric data. Of the 2116 articles included in the analysis, 1039 (49.1%) were published in 2018, and 1077 (50.9%) were published in 2019; the mean number of citations was 8.8 (95% CI, 7.9-9.6) for AJO, 6.2 (95% CI, 5.3-7.1) for JAMAO, and 15.1 (95% CI, 13.3-17.0) for OPH. The mean AAS was 4.5 (95% CI, 3.3-5.6) for AJO (723 publications), 27.4 (95% CI, 22.1-32.8) for JAMAO (758 publications), and 15.1 (95% CI, 10.9-19.3) for OPH (635 publications). Citation rate was moderately correlated with AAS across the 3 journals (AJO, ρ = 0.39; P < .001; JAMAO, ρ = 0.41; P < .001; OPH, ρ = 0.40; P < .001), as well as minimally or moderately correlated with engagement or mention by Facebook posts (AJO, ρ = 0.38; P < .001; JAMAO, ρ = 0.24; P < .001; OPH, ρ = 0.20; P < .001), news outlet reporting (AJO, ρ = 0.12; P < .001; JAMAO, ρ = 0.38; P < .001; OPH, ρ = 0.19; P < .001), and Twitter posts (AJO, ρ = 0.40; P < .001; JAMAO, ρ = 0.38; P < .001; OPH, ρ = 0.42; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that citation rate has a moderate positive correlation with online and social media sharing of research in ophthalmology literature. Peer-reviewed journals may increase their reach and impact by sharing their literature through social media and online platforms.

Anesthesiology Articles Published in 2020: A Review and Characterization of COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID-19 Publications in Top Anesthesiology Journals

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a significant impact on the practice of medicine worldwide, particularly in anesthesiology. As the clinical realm has rapidly adjusted to the realities of the pandemic, anesthesiology literature has also changed significantly to reflect this. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects the COVID-19 pandemic has had on anesthesiology literature. Specifically, it was hypothesized that the COVID-19-related literature in the anesthesiology community would gain more interest than non-COVID-19-related articles. A total of 15 anesthesiology-related journals with the highest impact factor in 2019, according to the Journal Citation Reports (JCR), were selected for data collection. An advanced PubMed search identified 5,722 COVID-19-related articles published by these journals in 2020. Next, articles with titles including “corona,” “COVID,” “COVID-19,” “pandemic,” “SARS,” or “SARS-CoV-2” were selected for inclusion in the study, which resulted in 676 (12%) articles. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 articles. Articles were then further characterized across multiple different variables, including country of origin, month published, type of article, and subspecialty of anesthesiology it pertained to. Of the 15 journals investigated, 676 (12%) articles of the 5,722 total articles published were found to be COVID-19-related material. The majority of the articles were found to be published in April (18%), May (19.5%), and June (14%). The majority of these articles were related either to general anesthesia (operating room anesthesiology that is not tied to a particular subspecialty fellowship track) (48%) or critical care (39%). By article type, most were determined to be editorial (71%) in nature, followed by original research articles (21%), of which most were cross-sectional (55%) studies. When compared with non-COVID-19-related articles, COVID-19-related articles had a significantly greater Altmetric score (29.518 versus 8.6333, p < 0.001). Of the COVID-19-related articles, original articles had the greatest Altmetric score, when compared to editorials and guidelines (54.794 versus 20.777 versus 40.643, p < 0.002). The response of the academic anesthesiology community to the COVID-19 pandemic was strong and timely, with a particularly strong focus on critical care anesthesia. The impact of the pandemic was strongly felt by the anesthesiology community, and their timely response served to guide our country and world through an incredibly challenging time. The pandemic highlighted the value of anesthesiologists worldwide, not only in the operating room setting but particularly as critical care physicians.

The Correlation between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Orthopaedic Literature

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and medical researchers increasingly turn to nonformal online platforms to promote research. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of online influence of research in real time. The objective of this study is to determine if AAS correlates with traditional bibliometrics in the orthopaedic literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 15 orthopaedic journals with the highest impact factor, the 10 most cited articles from each journal were reviewed for 2014 -2017. For each article, AAS was collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet application and citation count from SCOPUS. Journal impact factor was recorded using Journal Citation Reports. Statistical analysis included Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 600 articles were analyzed. A significant positive correlation was found between citation count and AAS for 2014 (r = 0.3188, p < 0.0001), and no correlation for 2015 (r = 0.1504, P = 0.0653), 2016 (r = 0.0087, P = 0.9157), and 2017 (r = 0.0061, P = 0.9408). There was no significant correlation between impact factor and AAS in 2014 (r = 0.4312, P = 0.1085), 2015 (r = 0.3850, P = 0.1565), 2016 (r = 0.1460, P = 0.6035) and 2017 (r = 0.0451 P = 0.8732).

CONCLUSIONS

AAS and traditional bibliometrics are currently not strongly correlated in orthopaedic literature. Citations take years to accumulate and AAS represents immediate influence of an article. An amalgamation of traditional bibliometrics and AAS may prove useful in determining the short- and long-term impact and influence of publications in orthopaedics.

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.

EMERGING ONLINE TOOLS AND PLATFORMS FOR SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES

Scholarly activities are increasingly dependent on a wide variety of online tools and platforms. Processing health information on such platforms may enrich research studies and solve some healthcare issues. Health information analyses and online surveys are frequently conducted to test old hypothesis and generate new ones. These studies require thorough understanding of the subject and skilful use of online platforms, including social media. Social media platforms are increasingly employed for retrieving and disseminating research data. Scholarly activities on Twitter and other globally popular social media are now recommended for research, education, and clinical practice. Aggregated social media information and related altmetric data have emerged as reflections of the immediacy effects of online sharing and commenting and as tools to complement citation analyses. Researchers and research managers may use altmetrics to plan their studies and introduce changes to the education process. Securing uninterrupted access to Internet and available online tools may facilitate quality research and other scholarly activities.