Altmetric Score Research Articles

Forty-seven years of Iranian cardiovascular disease scientific publication: A bibliometric and altmetric analysis.

The present study was conducted to investigate the scientific contributions of Iranians in the field of cardiovascular research, as indexed in the Scopus database, using bibliometric and altmetric methods. This applied study was conducted with a scientometric approach, utilizing bibliometric and altmetric indicators. The research population consisted of the scientific works of Iranian researchers in the field of cardiovascular diseases, indexed in the Scopus database over a period of 47 years. For bibliometric analysis and the generation of co-citation, co-occurrence, and co-authorship maps, the authors employed VOS Viewer software and the bibliometrix package in the R programming language. In the final stage, articles mentioned on social media were analyzed and evaluated using an altmetric approach. The results indicated that the commencement point for the publication of documents was 1975, and there has been a steep increase in recent years. Moreover, the documents were primarily research articles out of 6853 retrieved documents, and a limited number of documents were single-authored. Other findings also revealed the co-authorship map of authors and the co-occurrence of words, highly cited authors and institutions, and highly frequent keywords, signifying the scientific collaboration of Iranian researchers with the United States and England. Altmetric analysis also demonstrated that 43.41% of documents were shared at least once on social media and had an Altmetric Attention score. Furthermore, the analysis of altmetric indices showed that Mendeley, Twitter, and News had the highest share of document mentions on social media, respectively. The findings of the study can offer valuable information to researchers, managers, and policy makers to become aware of the current state of research in the field of cardiovascular diseases and implement the necessary policies to inform society and enhance public health status.

Measuring the social impact of funded research over nonfunded: a case study of BRICS

PurposeThe study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.Design/methodology/approachA total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.FindingsThe mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.Research limitations/implicationsThe study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.Originality/valueThe study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

Global Research Output of Lutetium-177 PSMA in Prostate Cancer: Bibliometric and Altmetric Analyses.

The integration of innovative radio-pharmaceutical agents targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) within nuclear medicine has transformed prostate cancer detection and management. This study aims to investigate the present landscape of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA in prostate cancer, elucidating trends, global contributions, scholarly outlets, institutions, and thematic concentrations with an aim to inform forthcoming research endeavors. We systematically probed the Scopus repository for relevant [177Lu]Lu-PSMA literature. An assessment of bibliometric and altmetric data was carried out. Finally, we assessed the correlation between the altmetric attention scores and the number of citations for the retrieved data. Spanning January 2015 to July 2023, the study encompassed 466 articles concerning [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy for prostate cancer. Predominant citation accolades gravitated towards metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer investigations and assessments of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy's safety and efficacy. Further research encompassed adverse effects linked to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA intervention, including xerostomia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and fatigue. Germany emerged as the primary academic contributor, with The Journal of Nuclear Medicine dominating publications (n = 55). A moderate significant correlation was detected between the number of citations and altmetric attention scores . The findings highlight the growing interest and advancements in the utilization of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA therapy in prostate cancer and offer a comprehensive global perspective on future research directions.

Impact analysis of primary and secondary research in radiology journals

IntroductionPrimary and secondary studies are considered the two major research categories. In this study, we examined the scientific and social media impact of primary and secondary publication types in papers published radiological journals during 2010–2020. Materials and methodsPubMed publication type tags were used to filter original articles and systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) articles. Clarivate Web of Science was utilized to obtain a list of all radiology journals from the category “Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging” in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). Automated approach was developed for programmatic extraction of bibliometric and Altmetric yearly citations of each included article using Dimensions API and Altmetric API with Python. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the citation rates between primary and secondary research articles. ResultsA total of 96,684 published articles from 2010 to 2020 were identified and their meta-data collected. The mean 2-year citation count following publication year was 5.8 for primary research and 10.2 for SR/MA articles (p < 0.001). Between 2010 and 2020, the mean number of citations per SR/MA article was 51.3 compared to 30.5 per primary research article (p < 0.001). Mean Altmetric score was 8.2 in SR/MA compared to 3.7 for primary research articles (p < 0.001). ConclusionSecondary research studies have been increasing in impact in both academia and social media compared to primary research. Our results highlight the importance and impact of systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles as a scientifically influential study type in radiology.

Evaluating Funding for Authors Achieving High Citations vs. Online Popularity.

The Altmetric score is a validated tool that measures online attention of scientific studies. A relationship between government/industry funding for authors and their study's citations have been previously demonstrated. It is not known whether funding is related to greater online attention. We hypothesize authors publishing studies achieving greater online attention (higher Altmetric scores) receive greater monetary support from industry while authors publishing studies achieving critical acclaim (more citations) receive greater monetary support from the National Institute of Health (NIH). Top spine surgery studies between 2010 and 2021 were selected based on Altmetric scores and citation number. The Open Payments Database was accessed to evaluate industry financial relationships while the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was accessed to evaluate NIH funding. Payments were compared between groups and analyzed with the Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi square analysis. Alpha <0.05. There were 60 and 51 authors with payment data in the top 50 Altmetric and top 50 citation studies, respectively, with eight authors having studies in both groups. Total industry payments between groups were not markedly different. The eight authors with studies in both groups received markedly more industry payments for consulting, travel/lodging, and faculty/speaking fees. Authors with articles in both groups (50%) were significantly more likely to receive NIH support, compared with authors of the top Altmetric articles (5%; P < 0.001) and top citation articles (12%; P < 0.001). Authors receiving NIH support received significantly less industry payments compared with authors not receiving NIH support ($148,544 versus $2,159,526; P < 0.001). These findings reject our hypothesis: no notable differences for industry payments and NIH funding between authors for top Altmetric and citation studies. Authors receiving funding from industry versus the NIH are generally two distinct groups, but there is a small group supported by both. These studies achieve both critical acclaim (citations) and online popularity (Altmetric scores). Data can be available on reasonable request.

Effects of open access publishing on article metrics in Neuropsychopharmacology.

Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP) offers the option to publish articles in different tiers of an open access (OA) publishing system: Green, Bronze, or Hybrid. Green articles follow a standard access (SA) subscription model, in which readers must pay a subscription fee to access article content on the publisher's website. Bronze articles are selected at the publisher's discretion and offer free availability to readers at the same article processing charge (APC) as Green articles. Hybrid articles are fully OA, but authors pay an increased APC to ensure public access. Here, we aimed to determine whether publishing tier affect the impact and reach of scientific articles in NPP. A sample of 6000 articles published between 2001-2021 were chosen for the analysis. Articles were separated by article type and publication year. Citation counts and Altmetric scores were compared between the three tiers. Bronze articles received significantly more citations than Green and Hybrid articles overall. However, when analyzed by year, Bronze and Hybrid articles received comparable citation counts within the past decade. Altmetric scores were comparable between all tiers, although this effect varied by year. Our findings indicate that free availability of article content on the publisher's website is associated with an increase in citations of NPP articles but may only provide a moderate boost in Altmetric score. Overall, our results suggest that easily accessible article content is most often cited by readers, but that the higher APCs of Hybrid tier publishing may not guarantee increased scholarly or social impact.

Hot spots of climate action research: altmetric attention and bibliometric analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study is to apply altmetrics and bibliometric indicators on the top 100 most mentioned articles published related to the sustainable development goal (SDG)-13, Climate Action. Design/methodology/approach The authors used the Altmetric Explorer’s SDGs filter to extract the most mentioned articles belonging to Climate Action and their other characteristics, such as DOI, titles, tools mentioning them and their demographic descriptions. The same set of papers was searched in the Dimensions database to extract them in the format importable in R-studio to check the distribution of papers across various journals and identify their subject category, countries and institutions publishing these papers. Further, SPSS was used to check the correlation between altmetric attention score (AAS) and citations. Findings The results of the paper showed the mean of AAS and the citations received by the articles was 3,556.35 and 304.04, respectively. Twitter has been the most used social media platform for mentioning the research related to climate action, covering 88.1% of the total mentions. The Twitter and the News mention demographics show the USA contributing the most tweet mentions (15.2%) as well as news mentions (57.65%) to the papers. Also, the USA has solely published 49 papers from the total papers selected for the study. The papers were published in 31 journals most of them belonging to the quartile first (Q1) category and primarily belonged to the subject category “Earth Sciences.” Pearson’s correlational method showed a significant but low positive correlation between AAS and citation counts (r = 0.365, p = &lt;0.001) and a strong positive correlation between the citations and Mendeley readership counts (r = 0.907). Originality/value The research is original in nature and discovered very interesting results about climate action using altmetric and bibliometric techniques.

The Fragility of Landmark Randomized Controlled Trials in the Plastic Surgery Literature.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are integral to the progress of evidenced-based medicine and help guide changes in the standards of care. Although results are traditionally evaluated according to their corresponding P value, the universal utility of this statistical metric has been called into question. The fragility index (FI) has been developed as an adjunct method to provide additional statistical perspective. In this study, we aimed to determine the fragility of 25 highly cited RCTs in the plastic surgery literature. A PubMed search was used to identify the 25 highest cited RCTs with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes across 24 plastic surgery journals. Article characteristics were extracted, and the FI of each article was calculated. Additionally, Altmetric scores were determined for each study to determine article attention across internet platforms. The median FI score across included studies was 4 (2-7.5, interquartile range). The two highest FI scores were 208 and 58, respectively. Four studies (16%) had scores of 0 or 1. Three studies (12%) had scores of 2. All other studies (72%) had FI scores of 3 or higher. The median Altmetric score was 0 (0-3). The FI can provide additional perspective on the robustness of study results, but like the P value, it should be interpreted in the greater context of other study elements.

The impact of Twitter/X promotion on visibility of research articles: Results of the #TweetTheJournal study

AimSocial media (SoMe) are emerging as important tools for research dissemination. Twitter/X promotion has been shown to increase citation rates in well-established journals. We aimed to test the effect of a SoMe promotion strategy on the Mendeley reader counts, the Altmetric Attention Score and the number of citations in an upcoming open-access journal. MethodsThe #TweetTheJournal study is a randomized, controlled study. Articles published in seven subsequent issues of the International Journal of Cardiology Heart & Vasculature (April 2021-April 2022) were randomized to a Twitter/X promotion arm (articles were posted four times) and to a control arm (without active posting). Articles with accompanied editorials were excluded. Primary endpoint of the study was Mendeley reader count, secondary endpoints were Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations. Follow-up was one year. ResultsSoMe promotion of articles showed no statistically significant difference in Mendeley reader counts or number of citations at one year follow up. SoMe promotion resulted in a statistically significant higher Altmetric Attention Score in the intervention compared to the control group (RR 1.604, 95 % CI 1.024–2.511, p = 0.039). In the overall group, Altmetric Attention Score showed a correlation with Mendeley reader counts (Spearman’s ρ = 0.202, p = 0.010) and Mendeley reader counts correlated significantly with number of citations (Spearman’s ρ = 0.372, p < 0.001). ConclusionA dedicated SoMe promotion strategy did not result in statistically significant differences in early impact indicators as the Mendeley reader count in a upcoming journal, but increased the Altmetric Attention Score.

Shaping Policy and Practice: Analyzing the Reach of Highly Cited and High Altmetrics Publications for Broader Impact on Physical Activity.

A significant gap remains between the availability of physical activity (PA) evidence-based interventions and their application in real-world settings in policy and practice areas. This study aims to describe highly cited and high altmetrics publications in PA research and explore their impact on PA policy and practice. Mixed-methods sequential explanatory study including the identification and description of the top highly cited and high altmetrics PA publications from the last 10years (including study design, population, type of PA study, number of citations, and altmetrics score), and interviews with key informants regarding research dissemination and implications on PA policy and practice. When considering publication type, the most frequent highly cited publications were health consequences (40%, altmetrics = 42%), measurement/trends (23%, altmetrics = 10%), and correlates/determinants (21%, altmetrics = 26%) studies. They were predominantly cross-sectional (50%, altmetrics = 28%), systematic reviews (38%, altmetrics = 18%), and longitudinal studies (8%, altmetrics = 37%). All authors who participated in the interviews agreed that the most important factors in disseminating findings and influencing PA policy and practice were the published peer-reviewed manuscript itself, the reputation of the journal, the communication strategy, and the use of online platforms. To have a real-world influence on PA policy and practice, it is not enough to publish the results in scientific journals and participate in media outreach. To successfully involve policymakers and communities in appropriating the evidence and evaluating the extent to which these findings affect policy and practice outcomes, it is critical to lead co-creation, co-dissemination, advocacy, and capacity building efforts.

How Much Do Altmetric Scores Correlate with Bibliometric Scores? Analysis of the Most-Cited 100 Articles about the Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostatectomy

Introduction: In addition to bibliometric scores, which are an indicator of academic popularity, it has become frequently used in altmetric scoring that shows the visibility of articles on social media and the internet. In this study, 100 most-cited studies on holmium laser enucleation prostatectomy (HoLEP) were examined, and it was investigated whether the number of citations per year of these studies was affected by altmetric and bibliometric scores. Methods: The 100 most-cited HoLEP articles between 2000 and 2020 were included in the study. Some bibliometric scores such as h-indexes, impact factors, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) scores of the journals and demographics of the articles (such as the number of the citations per year, total number of citations, and total altmetric scores) were recorded. The effects of altmetric and bibliometric scores on the number of citations per year were evaluated by correlation analysis. Results: The median number of citations per year of the articles was 5.88 (4.69–8.42). It was determined that altmetric scores were not an effective factor on the number of citations per year (p = 0.335). A moderate relationship was found between the journal impact factor and the number of citations per year (p < 0.001, r = 0.471, R² = 0.251). Journal h-index (p < 0.001, r = 0.424, R² = 0.084), the SJR score (p < 0.001, r = 0.374, R² = 0.254), and the publication year of the article (p = 0.001, r = 0.326, R² = 0.023) were significantly but weakly correlated with the median number of citations per year. Conclusion: It was seen that the number of citations per year, which is the most important academic quality indicator, is not related to the altmetric scores. In addition, traditional bibliometric parameters still maintain their effectiveness on the number of citations.

A Correlation Study Between Altmetrics and Citations Using the Parameters of Title Rendering, Open Access, and Funding Status

A correlation study between professional academic citations and social media (SM)-dominated Altmetrics measures is of interest to library professionals. Three parameters namely, title wording, open access (OA) facility, and research funding credentials impact the citation of an article. The study investigates how these parameters relate to the literature related to COVID-19, SM, and misinformation. The citations were obtained from the Dimension- Altmetric citation database. The database was searched using the search terms “Covid-19 AND Social Media AND Misinformation”. The Mann-Whitney-U test, pearson correlation and point- biserial correlation analysis were used to analyse the 1,489 citations. A moderate positive pearson correlation (r= 0.429, p= 0.00) between the altmetric score and dimension-based citations was found. A significant association between the altmetric score and OA compared to those of non-OA articles was observed. No significant association was found between the altmetric score and the use of specific words in the title of the article except for the length of the title. Articles that received financial support had significantly higher altmetric scores but, in the case of citations, this was not significant.

Does Altmetric Attention Score Correlate with Citations of Articles Published in High CiteScore Journals

In the ever-evolving landscape of scholarly communication, research impact assessment has expanded beyond traditional citation metrics. Altmetrics, which encompass a wide range of online indicators like social media mentions, downloads, and blog posts, provide insights into the broader societal engagement with scholarly works. This study explores the relationship between Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) and traditional citation metrics within the Library and Information Sciences (LIS) domain, focusing on high CiteScore open-access journals. The study collected bibliographic data of top 100 articles from Dimensions.ai database that were published between 2013 and 2022 and assesses the alignment between scholarly recognition and online engagement. The top 100 articles were selected based on highest AAS to focus on the most influential and widely-discussed research in order to provide a comprehensive overview of current trends and impactful findings in the field. The dissemination pattern of research highlights across various social web platforms is examined, shedding light on the diverse channels through which research reaches audiences. Correlation analysis reveals a weak and statistically insignificant connection between AAS and citations for the studied journals, emphasising the nuanced nature of scholarly impact in today’s digital landscape. The findings underscore the need to consider both traditional and alternative metrics when evaluating research influence and engagement in the evolving scholarly communication paradigm of the digital age. While this study is confined to specific journals within the LIS domain, its insights contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of research impact assessment.&#x0D;

Exploring the relationship between traditional bibliometrics and Altmetric scores in the primary care literature

AbstractThere is some evidence that Altmetric scores correlate with citations in medical research, but this is not consistent across different specialties. No previous studies have examined the association between Altmetric score and citations amongst primary care research journals. The aim of this study was therefore to describe this association. We identified the ten most frequently cited articles published in the top 15 highest impact factor primary care research journals. Article and journal metrics were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. We used Spearman's correlation coefficient (rs) and log–log linear regression modelling to examine the relationship between citations and Altmetric score. 150 articles were included with a median of 36.5 (IQR 20–59; range 5–811) citations. We found a positive association between citations and Altmetric score (rs = 0.519; p &lt; 0.001). A unit increase in log Altmetric score was associated with increased log citations [0.175 (95% CI 0.091–0.259, p &lt; 0.001)] in an adjusted linear regression model. The regression findings indicate that increasing Altmetric score by 10% was associated with a 1.68% increase in citation rate. This has implications for how authors, academic institutions and primary care research journals approach dissemination of articles.

Subject matter predicts where top pediatric spine articles are shared: citations vs. social media.

Systematic review. The purpose of this study was to compare the top 25 articles on pediatric spine surgery by number of citations and Altmetric score. All published articles pertaining to pediatric spine surgery from 2010 to 2021 were assessed for: Altmetric scores, Altmetric score breakdown (e.g. Twitter, News), citation counts, and article topics. The top 25 Altmetric articles and top 25 cited articles were identified. Out of the 50 total articles, only 3 (6.0%) overlapped between the two groups. The top Altmetric articles had averages (mean ± SD) of 167 ± 130 Altmetric score and 66 ± 135 citations, while the top citation articles had averages of 22 ± 45 Altmetric score and 196 ± 114 citations. When evaluating article topics, articles on 'back pain' (36% vs. 4%; P = 0.003) and 'backpacks' (16% vs. 0%; P = 0.030) were published significantly more in the top Altmetric group, while articles on 'scoliosis' (93% vs. 36%; P < 0.001) and 'growth friendly surgery' (24% vs. 4%; P = 0.041) were published significantly more in the top citation group. The total number of citations and online mentions for both groups are presented in Table 2. The biggest differences were the top Altmetric score articles receiving greater percentages of Twitter mentions relative to overall mentions (87% vs. 57%). The most socially popular articles focused on back pain and backpacks, and the most cited articles focused on scoliosis and growth-friendly surgery. Twitter had the most mentions of all social media for both the top cited articles and the top Altmetric articles.

Correlation of Social Media Metrics and Citations: A Case of Physical Review Letters

Scholarly literature is increasingly shared and discussed through the social web by researchers and academicians. The objective of the study is to investigate and measure the relationship of the citations with Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) for the selected articles in the physical review letter journal. Data extracted from Altmetric.com, Google Metrics, and from PlumXmetrics. Spearman correlation method was used to find the correlation between the Dimension and Scopus citations with AAS for selected articles, results show that the “p-value” stood as .009 and .002 which comes less than the significant level shows that high cited papers have a high AAS and the value of r stood as .772 and .851 which shows a high positive correlation between citations and AAS. US and Japan hold the top position countries with 816 and 326 tweets respectively. Mendeley and Twitter are contributing more to altmetrics scores. It is suggested that the Indian research community should also look forward to utilizing the social media platforms effectively to attract more audiences.

Analysis of Research Productivity of Orthopedic Surgery Residency Applicants.

Background Orthopedic surgery has become an increasingly competitive specialty. With a pass-fail Step 1, an even greater emphasis on research has been placed to allow candidates to better distinguish themselves. This study analyzes the scholarly activity of accepted orthopedic residency applicants during medical school, assessing what factors, including the novel altmetric attention score, may be associated with greater research productivity. Methods A list of orthopedic residency programs was obtained from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). A total of 688 orthopedic residents from 180 programs who matriculated in 2020 from allopathic medical schools were identified.Resident demographic information and bibliometric data (total publications, orthopedic-related publications, h-index, and altmetric score)of publications published from July 1, 2016, toSeptember 1, 2020, were collected. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis tests analyzed the association between medical school characteristics and research productivity using Stata® 17.0 (StataCorpLLC, College Station, Texas). Results Postgraduate-Year-3 orthopedic residents (N=688) published 2,600 articles during medical school, averaging 3.8 articles per resident. The residents from a top 25 medical school for research had publication counts, altmetric scores, and h-indices, on average, that were higher than those from non-top 25 medical schools for research. Over 150 residents had no publications, and ~10 residents had more than 30 publications. Conclusions The results illustrate that medical school research status influences the research productivity of applicants. Also, given the average number of publications, most research listed on applications are abstracts and presentations. Utilization of the altmetric score may not yet be the best way of examining research experience because orthopedic applicants do not appear to use social networks for academic research.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditionalmeasures of article impact for studies pertaining to spine trauma.

It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to share scientific literature via social media. Traditional bibliometrics have long been utilized to measure a study's academic impact, but they fail to capture the impact generated through social media sharing. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. We identified the five highest-rated spine-specific and five highest-rated general orthopedic journals by Scopus CiteScore 2020. We then identified all the spine trauma studies across a 5-year span (2016-2020) within these journals and compared AAS with traditional bibliometrics using Independent t-tests and Pearson's correlational analyses. No statistically significant relationships were identified between AAS and traditional bibliometrics for articles pertaining to spine trauma: Level of Evidence (R = - 0.02, p = 0.34), H-Index Primary Author (R = < - 0.01, p = 0.50), H-Index Senior Author (R = - 0.04, p = 0.24), and Number of Citations (R = 0.01, p = 0.40). The top five articles by AAS include those pertaining to motorcycle injuries (AAS = 687), orthosis in thoracolumbar fractures (AAS = 199), golfing injuries (AAS = 166), smartphone-based teleradiology (AAS = 41), and auto racing injuries (AAS = 39). The lack of overlap between these types of metrics suggests that AAS or similar alternative metrics should be used to measure an article's social impact. The social impact of an article should likewise be a factor in determining an article's overall impact along with its academic impact as measured by bibliometrics.

Evaluation of the correlation between Altmetric attention score and citation number of top 50 articles in hip fractures: a cross-sectional study.

Publications quality evaluation gets more attention nowadays, because of its impact on researchers ranking and academic journals. Beside traditional bibliometric tools, altemetric metrics have been introduced as tools to evaluate the dissemination of a study by the number of views, mentions, and posts on different websites and social medias. In this study, the authors evaluate the correlation between citation number as a traditional tool and altmetric attention score (AAS) as a new method. Scopus database was searched to find the 50 most cited manuscripts on "hip fractures" title from January 2015 to December 2020. After excluding irrelevant subjects, AAS of included articles was collected from the Altmetric.com website. At the last stage, the data were analyzed using statistical tests. According to statistical analysis, R 2 was 0.121, and the P-value was 0.017, which shows a weak but statistically significant relationship between citation and AAS. The relationship between the number of mentions on Twitter and the AAS was linear.The differences observed between the two groups were significant only in "Readers on Mendeley" and "Dimensions". Results shown that the impact factor of the journal and the AAS of articles had no significant relationship (R 2=0.001, P-value=0.986). Findings showed that social media does not seem to be ineffective in disseminating published articles. It has also been shown that Twitter can play a significant role in the propagation of articles on social networks. It is not unreasonable to say that the accessibility of a journal affects the dissemination of an article on social media. In the end, the authors found that the impact factor of the journal could not significantly affect the AAS.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies published within the Surgeon Journal

Alternative metrics, or altmetrics, have emerged as a promising tool for measuring the social impact of research, which is increasingly important in today's digital and social media-driven world. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. The purpose of this article was to retrospectively review articles published in the Surgeon Journal from 2003 to 2020 to compare AAS with bibliometric parameters using an Independent t-test and Pearson's correlation analysis. There were statistically significant weakly positive relationships between AAS and sample size, number of reads, and number of citations. There was no statistically significant relationship between AAS and number of authors, H-index, or level of evidence. This study highlights the potential value of altmetrics by measuring the social impact of research as altmetrics can provide valuable information not captured by traditional metrics. It is currently unclear what the optimal balance of social and academic impact is in evaluating research impact and how altmetrics can be integrated into existing research frameworks.