Top-cited articles versus top Altmetric articles in nuclear medicine: a comparative bibliometric analysis.

Abstract

The impact of any scientific article has traditionally been measured by the number of citations received. More recently, alternative metrics (altmetrics) reflect the digital dissemination of knowledge across the online mediasphere. To evaluate and compare the characteristics of top-cited articles with those of top Altmetric articles related to nuclear medicine (NM). We performed a search of the Web of Science and Altmetric databases using 114 search terms to identify the 50 top-cited and 50 top Altmetric articles, respectively, in the field of NM. We then compared the following characteristics of the selected articles: publication type; journal category; country of origin; year of publication; topic; imaging modality; and accessibility. Chi-square tests were performed for statistical analysis. There were no overlaps between the 50 top-cited and 50 top Altmetric articles. In general, compared to the leading Altmetric articles in this field, the cited articles were: more frequently review works published in NM and radiology journals (76% vs. 13%, P = 0.000); published in or before 2005 (84% vs. 0%, P = 0.000); the majority were related to oncology (56% vs. 44%, P = 0.000); and originated from the Netherlands (12% vs. 0%, P = 0.000). Compared to the top-cited articles, the leading Altmetric articles were: more frequently original articles published in other clinical field journals (54% vs. 0%, P = 0.000); primarily published between 2016 and 2018 (70% vs. 0%, P = 0.000); focused on neurology (50% vs. 22%, P = 0.000); and originated from the UK (18% vs. 2%, P = 0.000). Citation counts and Altmetric scores represent unique perspectives for evaluating the impact of NM research.