Characterizing online engagement and academic impact of oncology research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract

11043 Background: There is increasing use of social media as a platform to discuss research and educate. An article’s impact can be assessed through the Altmetric Attention score (AAS), which considers the volume of social media mentions (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, policy, etc), and the PlumX Impact score, which incorporates interactions on these platforms and citations. COVID-19 has encouraged novel literature in oncology, and these metrics may holistically evaluate the immediate impact of articles in addition to gradual accrual of citations. We explored the relationship between traditionally used bibliometrics (citations, impact factor) and new bibliometrics (AAS, PlumX) of the top 100 trending articles on cancer and COVID-19. Methods: The 100 articles with highest AAS featuring keywords “cancer” and “COVID-19” between March 1, 2019 and January 15, 2022 were identified via Altmetric explorer. AAS, journal, social media mentions, open access status and other characteristics were collected. Scopus database was utilized to identify PlumX scores and citation count. Analysis included Spearman correlation coefficients and ANOVA. Results: Of the 100 articles, 64% were original investigations, 18% editorials/perspectives, 6% guidelines/consensus articles and remaining article types < 6% each. Original investigations comprised of 41% retrospective cohort, 33% cross-sectional, 20% prospective cohort, and remainder < 4% each. Most articles were open access (91%), from cancer-focused journals (77%), and based in North America (36%); 25% were in Europe, 24% multi-continental, and remainder < 8% each. Most publications were in 2020 (56%) and 2021 (40%). AAS and PlumX did not correlate with number of citations or impact factor. Open access publications were associated with greater PlumX (p = 0.033) compared to closed access; this was not seen with AAS. ANOVA showed greater AAS in Australian articles (p =.004) and greater PlumX in North American articles (p =.04). Article type or publication year did not impact AAS and PlumX. Conclusions: In our analysis, Altmetrics and PlumX did not correlate to traditional bibliometrics (citation count, impact factor) in cancer and COVID-19 articles. This suggests that these tools may be complimentary rather than predictive of citations. However, this may change given likely insufficient time for citations to accrue for 2021 studies. There were more editorials/perspective articles compared to similar studies in other specialties, suggesting greater impact of such articles in oncology during COVID-19; this is perhaps due to reliance on expert opinion given paucity of data. Additionally, we noted that PlumX benefits from open access status. Overall, as the use of social media for research dissemination grows, researchers and journal editors may employ alternative metrics to better understand ways to increase the influence of oncology literature during the pandemic.