Social Media and Online Attention as an Early Measure of the Impact of Research in Solid Organ Transplantation

Does the quality of orthodontic studies influence their Altmetric Attention Score?

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine whether an association between study quality, other study characteristics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AASs) existed in orthodontic studies.

Methods

The Scopus database was searched to identify orthodontic studies published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. Articles that satisfied the eligibility criteria were included in this study. Study characteristics, including study quality were extracted and entered into a pre-pilot data collection sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated. On an exploratory basis, random forest and gradient boosting machine learning algorithms were used to examine the influence of article characteristics on AAS.

Results

In total, 586 studies with an AAS were analyzed. Overall, the mean AAS of the samples was 5. Twitter was the most popular social media platform for publicizing studies, accounting for 53.7%. In terms of study quality, only 19.1% of the studies were rated as having a high level of quality, with 41.8% of the studies deemed moderate quality. The type of social media platform, number of citations, impact factor, and study type were among the most influential characteristics of AAS in both models. In contrast, study quality was one of the least influential characteristics on the AAS.

Conclusions

Social media platforms contributed the most to the AAS for orthodontic studies, whereas study quality had little impact on the AAS.

Correlation between scientometrics and altmetrics score of scholarly literature of Medical Journal Armed Forces India

Background

Present article was an attempt to study correlation of scientometrics and altmetrics of scholarly output of Medical Journal Armed Forces India (MJAFI) during the period from 2010 to 2018.

Methods

The study was carried out by "DIMENSIONS", Webometric Analyst 4.1, VOSviewer, version 1.6.10, database to identify year-wise number of publications, their accessibility, altmetric attention, field citation ratio, and relative citation ratio of top 100 articles between 2010 and 2018. Pearson correlation test was used to assess data statistically using SPSS software, version 21.

Results

The study found that maximum publications were in 2015, i.e. 21.44% followed by 2018, i.e. 11.52% with 1053 articles open access and 318 articles closed access (1371). Total 317 altmetric attention received by total 1371 articles, and "Clinical Sciences" category published most of publications with 0.55 mean field citation ratio (FCR) and 0.31 mean relative citation ratio (RCR). The positive correlation value between citations and altmetric scores obtained was 0.88. It was also observed that the topmost article among the top 100 has a maximum RCR (8.24) and FCR (19.3).

Conclusion

Present study found that articles published in MJAFI are getting favorable attention at both academic as well as social platform; however, the constant improvement and rigorous maintenance of standards is utmost important by publishing high-quality evidence-based studies and its subsequent dissemination at both academic and non-academic platform, which might be beneficial to not only medical field but also well-being of entire human race.

Clarivate listed nursing journals in 2020: what they publish and how they measure use of social media

Objectives

To investigate what the most common types of articles that nursing journals purport to publish are and what they actually publish. And to investigate the extent to which academic nursing journals listed by Clarivate track alternative metrics.

Methods

Journals included in the nursing Journal Citation Report (JCR) journal category in 2019 described as nursing were identified and considered suitable for inclusion in the analysis. Instructions for authors were reviewed online and mention of each type of article is identified. The tables of contents of each issue of each journal published during 2019 were examined and the types of articles published were extracted to a spreadsheet into permitted article types and published articles. Likewise, the use of alternative metrics by each journal was extracted to a spreadsheet. Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analysis was applied to investigate the relationship between articles permitted and articles published.

Results

In the 2020 JCR, 123 journals were listed. The most common article type permitted was original research (n = 117), followed by review papers (n = 116), and discussion papers (n = 63). Original research (n = 7045); review papers (n = 1268); discussion papers (n = 1225); editorials (n = 793) and commentaries (n = 776) were the most commonly published categories of the article. Of journals examined, 108 (96.8%) tracked mentions on social media and the Altmetric score was most commonly used (75%). There was a strong correlation (r = 0.73; P = 0.002) between the numbers of articles permitted and published and a strong correlation (ρ = 0.86; P < 0.001) in terms of the rankings of the permitted and published articles.

Conclusions

There is a relationship between the most frequently permitted article types and those published, especially for the most frequent categories of both. Original articles, review papers, and discussion papers are the backbone of academic publishing in nursing with original articles vastly outweighing review and discussion papers. Most Clarivate listed journals now use some method of tracking alternative metrics indicating how seriously publishers take their social media profiles.

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.

News and social media coverage is associated with more downloads and citations of manuscripts that focus on substance use

BACKGROUND

A variety of substance use-related topics are discussed in the public discourse; however, it is unknown how public discussion of published substance-related findings relates to manuscript downloads and citations. This manuscript examines how traditional and social media coverage of published findings about substance use affects downloads and scientific citations.

METHODS

Altmetric and bibliographic information was obtained for manuscripts published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence between 2018 and 2019 (n = 943). Associations were examined between news and social media coverage (i.e., Twitter, Facebook) in relation to number of manuscript downloads and number of citations. This was done in a bivariable manner and in a multivariable manner examining correlates of being in the top 10^th percentile of downloads and citations.

RESULTS

73.3 % of articles were shared on Twitter, 23.6 % were shared on Facebook, and 13.9 % were covered in news sources (with 4.0 % receiving major media coverage). Epidemiology papers were among the most covered in the news, and e-cigarette review papers were among the most downloaded. News and social media coverage were positively associated with number of downloads and citations in bivariable models and with achieving the top 10 % of downloads and citations in multivariable models (ps < .001). Publishing a press release was associated with higher likelihood of receiving additional news coverage (aPR = 7.85, 95 % CI: 5.15-11.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional and social media coverage of manuscripts focusing on substance use are associated with more downloads and citations. Researchers should consider sharing findings not only to increase downloads and citations but also to educate the general public.

If I tweet will you cite later? Follow-up on the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations

OBJECTIVES

We previously reported that random assignment of scientific articles to a social media exposure intervention did not have an effect on article downloads and citations. In this paper, we investigate whether longer observation time after exposure to a social media intervention has altered the previously reported results.

METHODS

For articles published in the International Journal of Public Health between December 2012 and December 2014, we updated article download and citation data for a minimum of 24-month follow-up. We re-analysed the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.

RESULTS

There was no difference between intervention and control group in terms of downloads (p = 0.72) and citations (p= 0.30) for all papers and when we stratified by open access status.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer observation time did not increase the relative differences in the numbers of downloads and citations between papers in the social media intervention group and papers in the control group. Traditional impact metrics based on citations, such as impact factor, may not capture the added value of social media for scientific publications.

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

Social Media Usage During Disasters: Exploring the Impact of Location and Distance on Online Engagement

Social media play an important role in emergency management. The location of citizens and distance from a disaster influence the social media usage patterns. Using the Tianjin Port Explosion, we apply the correlation analysis and regression analysis to explore the relationship between online engagement and location. Citizens' online engagement is estimated by social media. Three dimensions of the psychological distance - spatial, temporal, and social distances - are applied to measure the effects of location and distance. Online engagement is negatively correlated to such 3 kinds of the distance, which indicates that citizens may pay less attention to a disaster that happens at a far away location and at an area of less interaction or at a relatively long period of time. Furthermore, a linear model is proposed to measure the psychological distance. The quantification relationship between online engagement and psychological distance is discussed. The result enhances our understanding of social media usage patterns related to location and distance. The study gives a new insight on situation awareness, decision-making during disasters.

Measuring the social impact of nursing research: An insight into altmetrics

AIMS

The objectives of this study were to (a) identify nursing journal articles that provoked the most online activity and discussion and (b) assess the association between these articles' altmetric scores and publication characteristics, citation counts; and publishing journals metrics.

BACKGROUND

Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, have recently emerged as a complementary way of measuring the societal impact of research by assessing the public engagement with research output. To date, no studies have yet investigated the online attention about scientific papers published in the nursing field.

DESIGN

Integration of quantitative and qualitative synthesized evidence.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS

InCites Journal Citation Report was used to identify a list of nursing journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. Altmetric Explorer was selected as an altmetrics harvesting tool. The search in Altmetric Explorer yielded 66,608 research outputs from 118 nursing journals. The articles with the top 100 altmetric attention score (AAS) were identified and a new search, limited to only those 100 articles, was run to produce aggregate metrics specific to those articles. The articles were also exported for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The median AAS for the 100 articles was 248, ranging from 138 - 649. The articles were mostly discussed on Twitter, followed by news outlets and Mendeley. Articles indexed in the nursing journals category attracted low online attention compared with articles published in other health journal categories. Twitter remained the dominant source of attention over the years 2012-2018, followed distantly by news outlets. Most online attention came from the USA and the UK. Of the top 100 articles included in the study, the Journal of Advanced Nursing published the highest number of articles (N = 26; Median AAS = 179). The AAS was not significantly different between articles published in Q1 journals and those published in Q2 and Q3 journals. There was a significant relationship between articles' AASs and their citation counts on Scopus and Web of Science. Publication date was significantly related to citation counts on Scopus and Web of Science but not with AASs.

CONCLUSION

Altmetrics will likely continue to evolve alongside the rapidly expanding use of social media and online platforms. As nursing continues to strive to have our research and scholarship inform policy, translated into practice and recognized for its scientific merit, we have to remain vigilant about the best ways to disseminate the important work we are doing. Research, such as this study, will allow nursing scholars to benchmark our progress as we adapt to the changing environment for measuring impact and quality in the digital age.

Looking Beyond Traditional Metrics in Orthodontics: An Altmetric Study on the Most Discussed Articles on the Web

Objective

To evaluate the online visibility of the most popular orthodontic articles in Web platforms in relation to publication details and citations.

Materials and Methods

Altmetric Explorer (Altmetric LLP, London, UK) was searched for articles published in 11 orthodontic journals without time limits in publication and citation on social media. The 200 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were collected and screened for data related to publication (date, journal, access), authorship (number of authors, affiliation and origin of the corresponding author), and research (type, subject, funding). Citation counts were harvested from Scopus.

Results

The top 200 articles presented a median AAS of 8.0 (range: 5.0-196.0), and were mostly bookmarked in Mendeley (median: 16.6 references; range: 0-199.0). American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, European Journal of Orthodontics and The Angle Orthodontist contributed 86 per cent of the total number of research outputs. Studies investigating socio-demographics had significantly higher AAS compared to diagnostic studies (median AAS: 19.0; range: 7.0-34.0; versus median AAS: 6.0; range: 5.0-10.0. No other study parameter was found to be statistically significant. AAS did not correlate to the number of citations as reported in Scopus.

Limitations

The early stage of altmetrics and their complementary role in assessing together with the citation-based metrics the research impact need to be acknowledged in the interpretation of the results.

Conclusions

Visibility of orthodontic articles on the Web is not significantly correlated with citations. Studies on socio-demographics had significantly higher number of online mentions. More constructive online presence of orthodontic journals is needed to reinforce dissemination of research data among scholars and non-scholars.

Value of social media in advancing surgical research

Spreading the word

Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments

Background

New metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating cancer treatments and identify the factors associated with high online media attention.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed on March 1, 2015 for articles published during the first 6 months of 2014 in oncology and medical journals with a diverse range of impact factors, from 3.9 to 54.4, and selected a sample of articles evaluating a cancer treatment regardless of study design. Altmetric Explorer was used to identify online media attention of selected articles. The primary outcome was media attention an article received online as measured by Altmetric score (i.e., number of mentions in online news outlets, science blogs and social media). Regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with high media attention, and regression coefficients represent the logarithm of ratio of mean (RoM) values of Altmetric score per unit change in the covariate.

Results

Among 792 articles, 218 (27.5%) received no online media attention (Altmetric score = 0). The median [Q1–Q3] Altmetric score was 2.0 [0.0–8.0], range 0.0–428.0. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with high Altmetric score were presence of a press release (RoM = 10.14, 95%CI [4.91–20.96]), open access to the article (RoM = 1.48, 95%CI [1.02–2.16]), and journal impact factor (RoM = 1.10, 95%CI [1.07–1.12]. As compared with observational studies, systematic reviews were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 1.46, 95%CI [0.74–2.86]; P = 0.27), nor were RCTs (RoM = 0.65, 95%CI [0.41–1.02]; P = 0.059) and phase I/II non-RCTs (RoM = 0.58, 95%CI [0.33–1.05]; P = 0.07). The articles with abstract conclusions favouring study treatments were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 0.97, 95%CI [0.60–1.58]; P = 0.91).

Conclusions

Most important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor. There was no evidence that study design with high level of evidence and type of abstract conclusion were associated with high online media attention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0033-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Scholarly Influence of Orthopaedic Research According to Conventional and Alternative Metrics: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Researchers are experiencing an innovative shift toward online distribution of their work, and metrics related to online scholarly influence are gaining importance. Our objectives were to determine which types of online activity are most prevalent in orthopaedics, to identify associated factors, and to explore a complementary approach to measuring overall scholarly influence using online activity and conventional citations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of surgical or nonsurgical interventions in participants with, or at specific risk for, injuries and diseases of the musculoskeletal system. We collected data on online activity in social media, mainstream media, blogs, forums, and other sources from a commercial provider of alternative metric data for medical journals. We tested associations with use of negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

We identified 1,697 trials, published between 2011 and 2014, that had a total of 12,995 conventional citations and 15,068 online mentions. The median number of online mentions of each trial was 2 (interquartile range, 0 to 5). Twitter (82%) and Facebook (13%) mentions were the most prevalent types of online activity. Counts of online mentions correlated with conventional citations (r = 0.11, p < 0.01) but accumulated more rapidly. Higher total counts of online mentions were consistently associated with longer time since publication, higher journal impact factor, higher author h-index values, and less risk of bias (p < 0.01 for each). We found the best model fit for a complementary approach by weighting citations and online mentions equally.

CONCLUSIONS

Online activity in orthopaedics is dominated by activity on Twitter and Facebook and is associated with increasing time since publication, journal impact factor, and author h-index values, and less risk of bias. Institutions, publishers, funding agencies, and clinicians may consider a complementary approach to measuring scholarly influence that weights online mentions and conventional citations equally.