Factors associated with high Altmetric Attention Score in dermatology research

Dermatology journals from India: A critical appraisal of the journal metrics

Background Bibliometrics refer to documents and citation-based measures that measure different aspects of performance of a journal, including impact, output and prestige. Objective The aim of this study was to collect bibliometric data of various Indian dermatology journals as well as Indian journals from other disciplines, in order to compare relative performances. Methods Journal metrics pertaining to various Indian journals, both from dermatology [Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL), Indian Journal of Dermatology (IJD), Indian Dermatology Online Journal, Indian Journal of Pediatric Dermatology and International Journal of Trichology] and other disciplines [Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR), Indian Journal of Pediatrics (IJP), Indian Journal of Ophthalmology and Indian Journal of Pharmacology] were sought. Data pertaining to the following 8 metrics during the year 2021 was collected: Journal Impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank, h5-index, Eigenfactor score and normalized Eigenfactor Score, Journal Citation Indicator, Scimago Journal and Country Rank H-index, CiteScore and Source Normalized Impact per Paper. Results Among Indian dermatology journals, for the year 2021, IJDVL had the highest impact factor (2.217) and h-index (48). IJD led in terms of prestige metrics such as SCImago Journal Rank (0.403), Eigenfactor score (0.00231) and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (1.132). IJDVL underperformed with respect to an average dermatology journal on all three prestige metrics. Among selected journals from other disciplines, two (IJMR and IJP) had impact factor exceeding five, despite lagging behind IJDVL two years ago. Most had normalized scores exceeding 1, indicating better performance than an average journal from their respective fields. Limitations Non-inclusion of altmetrics related data Conclusion IJDVL is one of the leading Indian journals in the field of dermatology, followed closely by IJD. A rise in IJDVL influence is evident over the past decade, as evident by various metrics. However, the progress still trails behind the average of global dermatology journals as evident by the field-normalized journal metrics, indicating potential for further growth of journal influence.

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.

Open Access Articles Garner Increased Social Media Attention and Citation Rates Compared With Subscription Access Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

To better understand the research impact on social media, alternative web-based metrics (Altmetrics) were developed. Open access (OA) publishing, which allows for widespread distribution of scientific content, has become increasingly common in the medical literature. However, the relationship between OA publishing and social media impact remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and subscription access (SA) research articles within the orthopaedic and sports medicine literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Articles published as either OA or SA in 5 high-impact hybrid orthopaedic journals between January 2019 and December 2019 were analyzed. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a validated measure of social media attention. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and the number of shares on social media. Independent t tests and chi-square analyses were used to compare outcomes between OA and SA articles. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and AAS while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 2143 articles (246 OA articles, 11.5%; 1897 SA articles, 88.5%) were included. The mean AAS among all OA articles was 62.4 ± 184.6 (range, 0-2032), whereas the mean AAS among all SA articles was 18.4 ± 109.8 (range, 0-3425), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). The mean citation rate among OA articles was significantly higher (17.0 ± 22.5; range, 0-139) than that of SA articles (8.6 ± 13.4; range, 0-169) (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that OA status (β = 15.15; P = .044), number of institutions (β = 2.13; P = .023), studies classified as epidemiological investigations (β = 107.40; P < .001), and disclosure of a conflict of interest (β = -11.18; P = .032) were significantly associated with a higher AAS.

CONCLUSION

OA articles resulted in significantly greater AAS and citations in comparison with SA articles. Articles published through the OA option in hybrid journals as well as those with a higher number of institutions, those that disclosed a conflict of interest, and those classified as epidemiological investigations were positively associated with greater AAS in addition to a greater number of citations. The potential for more extensive research dissemination inherent in the OA option may therefore translate into greater reach and social media attention.

Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Publications

BACKGROUND

Bibliometric studies provide a quantitative statistical analysis of the published literature within a field of interest and allow for easy identification of the major contributing authors, funding sources, and publication trends within the field. To date, no bibliometric studies have been performed pertaining to Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).

OBJECTIVE

To identify the 100 most frequently cited articles in MCC through a bibliometric analysis of the literature.

METHODS

Web of science was queried to determine the 100 most frequently cited MCC publications published between the years 1970 and 2019. Articles were listed by title, authors and their affiliated institutions, journal title and type, year of publication, country of origin, funding sources, and citation frequency.

RESULTS

Among the 100 most frequently cited MCC publications, articles were cited between 67 and 589 times with a mean of 136.3 times. Articles were cited between 2.0 and 98.2 times per year since publication with a mean of 11.3 times per year. 67% of the articles were published in oncology journals; 33% and 10% of the articles in dermatology and surgery journals, respectively. The most represented journal was Cancer (12%). Paul Nghiem was the most frequently identified author (18%). 36% of the top 100 articles were published out of the University of Washington. The most frequent funding agency was the National Institutes of Health (77%).

CONCLUSION

Through this bibliometric analysis, researchers can easily identify key publications pertaining to MCC, which may in turn enhance their approach to understanding and practicing evidence-based medicine regarding MCC.