Altmetric Score Research Articles

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

ObjectivesTo evaluate for coronavirus disease 2019 treatments without benefits in subsequent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results. Study Design and SettingScopus searches (December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine, or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and had >150 citations. Their conclusions were correlated with study design features. The 10 most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained. ResultsForty eligible articles of clinical studies had received >150 citations. Twenty of forty (50%) had favorable conclusions and four were equivocal. Highly cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs (3/20), although those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (15/20, P = 0.0003). Only one RCT with favorable conclusions had >160 patients. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, especially news items. Only nine (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical. ConclusionMany clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective coronavirus disease 2019 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

Child Abuse as an Example of Coexistence of Emotional and Physical Trauma Among Children: An Academic Overview With Altmetric Perspective.

Introduction: Child abuse combines emotional, physical, sexual, and neglect aspects of violence, thus diversifying the trauma for a child. Publications about child abuse had been discussed in academia for long years and evaluated by bibliometric analysis, frequently. This study aims to evaluate the most discussed/disseminated scientific publications about child abuse in electronic media such as social media accounts, blogs, podcasts, and media news sites using a new analysis method called altmetric analysis.Methods: The data were obtained from the Altmetric Explorer database using the phrase “child abuse,” in 2021. After being ranked by altmetric attention score (AAS), descriptive statistics for all publications as well as detailed analyses for the first-100 publications were performed. Variables evaluated were AAS, dimensions-badge value, distribution of web sources, demographic/geographic-breakdown type distributions, main subject categories, and mesh terms. Kruskal Wallis test was used for AAS and dimensions-badge value comparisons while Spearman correlations and regression analysis were also performed. Analyses were performed by SPSS 23.0 (IBM SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Publications about child abuse were shared extensively on social media, mostly on Twitter. In terms of the main subject, sexual abuse was the trending topic, followed by physical abuse and maltreatment. Psychology, studies in human society, health sciences, and law/legal issues were the four main science categories about the subject. The United States was the major disseminator of publications while Child Abuse and Neglect was the most productive journal. There was a weak but significant (p<0.05) positive correlation between AAS and dimensions-badge values.Conclusion: Child abuse is a multidimensional subject in social media. As the number of publications increases, the possibility of articles to be shared on different social media platforms also increases. The majority of the top-100 publications are the ones emphasizing the importance of child abuse in terms of the prevalence, individual/social burden, and negative consequences.

Altmetric and bibliometric analysis of obstetrics and gynecology research: influence of public engagement on citation potential

Whether research engagement on social media and other public platforms results in increased citations in obstetrics and gynecology remains uncertain. The Altmetric Attention Score is a metric of research influence based on mentions on social media and public platforms, such as newsfeeds and Wikipedia. The correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores, absolute citation rates, and the Relative Citation Ratio (a novel metric of research engagement also based on citation rates) in obstetrics and gynecology research is uncertain. To evaluate the correlation between Altmetric Attention Score, absolute citation rate, and Relative Citation Ratio for articles published in obstetrics and gynecology journals from 2004 to 2019. Our second objective was to identify, characterize, and compare the 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios. We performed a cross-sectional altmetric and bibliometric study of all obstetrics and gynecology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 2004 to 2019. Articles were included if they were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals according to InCites Journal Citation Reports indexing. Citation data, including citation numbers and Relative Citation Ratios, were downloaded on March 20, 2021 and merged with altmetric data from the Altmetric Explorer on the basis of each article's unique PubMed identification number. We assessed correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and number of citations and Altmetric Attention Scores and Relative Citation Ratios by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient. The 100 articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores, the 100 most-cited articles, and the 100 articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were characterized and compared using means (standard deviations) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals). There were 156,592 articles published in 82 obstetrics and gynecology journals and indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection between 2004 and 2019. The correlation coefficient was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.19) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs number of citations and 0.10 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.11) for Altmetric Attention Scores vs Relative Citation Ratios. There was no overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 most-cited list, and there was minimal overlap among the 100 articles on the highest Altmetric Attention Score list and the 100 highest Relative Citation Ratio list (98 unique articles on each list). Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated substantially more engagement on social media and other public platforms than most-cited articles (mean Altmetric Attention Score, 763.1 [standard deviation, 520.8] vs 49.9 [standard deviation, 81.6]; mean difference,-713.2 [95% confidence interval,-819.9 to -606.6]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 116.2 [standard deviation, 415.9]; mean difference,-661.5 [95% confidence interval,-746.2 to-576.9]). In contrast, the articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores generated far fewer citations than most-cited articles (mean, 39.7 [standard deviation, 47.6] vs 541.8 [standard deviation, 312.8]; mean difference, 502.0 [95% confidence interval, 439.0-565.0]) and highest Relative Citation Ratio articles (mean, 458.9 [standard deviation, 363.5]; mean difference, 427.7 [95% confidence interval, 353.8-501.6]). Nearly half of articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were basic/translational studies, often about menopause and environmental factors impacting fertility, whereas most-cited articles and articles with highest Relative Citation Ratios were more likely to be reviews and consensus statements, respectively, often about placentation and polycystic ovary syndrome, respectively. Articles with highest Altmetric Attention Scores were more likely to be published as open-access. There seems to be weak short-term correlation between Altmetric Attention Scores and citation rates. Further study is warranted to ascertain whether there may be long-term correlation between alternative metrics and citation rates in obstetrics and gynecology.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PRS and PRS-GO.

Background:Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.Methods:We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.Results:A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (β-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (β-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (β-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).Conclusions:Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

Influenza Altmetric Attention Score and its association with the influenza season in the USA.

Background:Altmetrics measure the impact of journal articles by tracking social media, Wikipedia, public policy documents, blogs, and mainstream news activity, after which an overall Altmetric attention score (AAS) is calculated for every journal article. In this study, we aim to assess the AAS for influenza related articles and its relation to the influenza season in the USA. Methods:This study used the openly available Altmetric data from Altmetric.com. First, we retrieved all influenza-related articles using an advanced PubMed search query, then we inputted the resulted query into Altmetric explorer. We then calculated the average AAS for each month during the years 2012-2018. Results : A total of 24,964 PubMed documents were extracted, among them, 12,395 documents had at least one attention. We found a significant difference in mean AAS between February and each of January and March (p< 0.001, mean difference of 117.4 and 460.7, respectively). We found a significant difference between June and each of May and July (p< 0.001, mean difference of 1221.4 and 162.7, respectively). We also found a significant difference between October and each of September and November (p< 0.001, mean difference of 88.8 and 154.8, respectively). Conclusion:We observed a seasonal trend in the attention toward influenza-related research, with three annual peaks that correlated with the beginning, peak, and end of influenza seasons in the USA, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.

Twitter Journal Club Impact on Engagement Metrics of the Neurocritical Care Journal.

Twitter journal clubs are a modern way of highlighting articles published in a scientific journal. The Neurocritical Care journal (NCC) initiated a bimonthly, Twitter-based, online journal club in 2015 to increase the outreach of its published articles. We hypothesize that articles included in the Neurocritical Care Society Twitter Journal Club (NCSTJC) had greater engagement than other articles published during the same time period. We also investigated the relationship between number of citations and Altmetric score to assess whether the enhanced online activity resulted in higher citations. We gathered data in August 2020 on engagement metrics (number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations) of all articles published in NCC between 2015 and 2018. Articles were analyzed into two groups: one featured in NCSTJC and the rest that were not (non-NCSTJC1), and the other comprised those that were not in NCSTJC but published under a similar category of articles as NCSTJC (non-NCSTJC2). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and summary measures were used to report the spread. The groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, given that the data were not normally distributed. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess correlation between Altmetric score and citations for the articles in the NCSTJC and non-NCSTJC groups. For comparison, the top ten cited articles in NCC were analyzed for similar correlations. Between 2015 and 2018, NCC published 529 articles, 24 of which were included in the Twitter journal club. A total of 406 articles were published in the same category as the category of articles selected for NCSTJC. The articles discussed as a part of NCSTJC had a statistically significant trend toward a higher number of downloads, Altmetric score, relative citation ratio, and number of citations than rest of the articles published in the journal during the same time period and the rest of the articles published in same categories. Three NCSTJC articles were among the ten most-cited articles published by NCC between 2015 and 2018. We did not find a correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations in the NCSTJC or non-NCSTJC1 or non-NCSTJC2 group, but there was a strong correlation between these two variables in high performing articles when the top ten cited articles were analyzed. Scientific journals are evolving their social media strategies in attempt to increase the outreach of their articles to the medical community. Platforms such as Twitter journal clubs can enhance such engagement. The long-term influence of such strategies on the impact factor of a medical journal and traditional engagement metrics, such as citations, calls for further research.

A practical Guide to An Altmetric Analysis and Top 100 most Mentioned Dentistry Articles

Objectives: A massive number of articles are published every year concerning dentistry, and it is a superhuman task to read and get actualized about it. The aim of this study is to create a list of higher altmetric scores articles in dentistry and teach how to perform this kind of bibliometric analysis. Material and Methods: Research on the term "dentistry" was done using the Dimensions app (retrospective study). Results were ranked in altmetric citations and analyzed through Microsoft Excel to create some tables and graphics to facilitate data visualization. Graphical illustration of keywords was created using VOSviewer. Some statistical tests were performed with a confidence interval at 95% (p&lt;0.05). Results: The United States is the country that leads this list of high interest in dentistry articles, and some fascinating subjects can be noted, like growing interest in dental office aggressions, preventive care, and phytotherapy, among others. A practical guide how to perform an altmetric analysis was discussed. Conclusion: Altmetric analysis is a new web-based, valuable manner to scientific updates, a complementary analysis to bibliometric analysis. Altmetrics is a free, useful, quick and available to everyone way to update in dentistry. Clinical Relevance: altmetrics is a new and efficient manner to be attualized. Objectives statement: The reader should know this free type of bibliometric analysis and to know how to perform it.

An Evidence-based and Inclusive Breast Cancer Screening Strategy: Summary of Current Guidelines from the American College of Radiology and Society of Breast Imaging.

HomeRadiology: Imaging CancerVol. 4, No. 2 PreviousNext Research HighlightsFree AccessAn Evidence-based and Inclusive Breast Cancer Screening Strategy: Summary of Current Guidelines from the American College of Radiology and Society of Breast ImagingDevan Diwanji, Bonnie JoeDevan Diwanji, Bonnie JoeDevan DiwanjiBonnie JoePublished Online:Mar 18 2022https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.229003MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In Take-Away Points■ Major Focus: For persons at average risk, initiating annual screening mammography at age 40 years confers the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality with diagnosis at earlier stages and better options for surgery and chemotherapy.■ Key Result: Screening should continue past age 74 years without upper age limit unless significant comorbidities limit life expectancy.■ Impact: Breast cancer risk assessment should be performed by age 30 years, especially in Black, Asian, and Hispanic women, to appropriately define risk category for each person.Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in women. Although advances in treatments have significantly improved survival, they alone cannot overcome the disadvantage of a late-stage cancer diagnosis. Regular breast cancer screening with mammography reduces mortality by approximately 40% for women age 40 years and older. Experts from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) reviewed data from numerous trials and imaging studies to offer evidence-based recommendations for screening mammography. Recommendations focused on reducing morbidity and mortality while addressing screening disparities and risks of screening versus not screening.The ACR and SBI recommend annual screening mammography starting at age 40 years for individuals at average risk. Starting at age 40 years versus 45 or 50 years helps detect cancer at earlier stages in which smaller tumor burdens and less metastatic potential broaden effective therapeutic options. Annual screening helps identify cancers with potential to grow and metastasize during longer screening interval periods. More than one-third of breast cancer deaths and nearly half for women age 40–49 years manifested in the 2nd year after mammography with negative findings. Because one in five breast cancers occur in women age 75 years and older, the ACR and SBI recommend screening past 75 years of age with consideration for comorbidities that limit life expectancy. More frequent screening increases benign-outcome recalls and biopsies but should be balanced against benefits of gained life-years and fewer deaths from breast cancer. Overdiagnosis from mammography screening occurs in less than 1% of women younger than 60 years of age, independent of screening interval or age to begin screening. A single mammography examination provides minimal radiation, equivalent to 6 weeks of natural background radiation. The ratio of lives saved by mammography compared with the theoretical possibility of lives lost from increased radiation exposure is 50–75 to one. Both benefits and risks should be considered to help individuals make informed choices regarding screening.The ACR and SBI recommendations address racial disparities associated with less frequent or delayed screening. Racial and ethnic minority women younger than 50 years old are 72% more likely to be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer than non-Hispanic White women. One-third of breast cancers in Black, Asian, and Hispanic women are diagnosed before 50 years of age. Biological factors, including higher incidences of mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and aggressive triple-negative disease in racial and ethnic minority women, as well as systemic inequities in access to screening mammography may contribute to these discrepancies. Earlier or more frequent screening may detect cancers earlier in racial and ethnic minority women and mitigate some differences.Highlighted ArticleMonticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2021; 18(9):1280–1288. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021Highlighted ArticleMonticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, et al. Breast cancer screening recommendations inclusive of all women at average risk: update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18(9):1280–1288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021 Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished online: Mar 18 2022 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles Age-based versus Risk-based Mammography Screening in Women 40–49 Years Old: A Cross-sectional StudyRadiology2019Volume: 292Issue: 2pp. 321-328Sustainable Benefits of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ScreeningRadiology2020Volume: 298Issue: 1pp. 58-59Non-BRCA Early-Onset Breast Cancer in Young WomenRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 1pp. 5-22Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007–2016Radiology2021Volume: 300Issue: 2pp. 290-300Invited Commentary: The Challenges of Early-Onset Breast CancerRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 1pp. E16-E17See More RSNA Education Exhibits How to Identify Women Who Are Above Average Risk for Developing Breast Cancer: Retrospective Review of our Institution's First Year Experience After Implementing a Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Program in Breast ImagingDigital Posters2018High Risk Breast Cancer Screening  Digital Posters2020Non-Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR Screening for Women with Dense BreastsDigital Posters2019 RSNA Case Collection Multifocal breast cancerRSNA Case Collection2020Male invasive Ductal Carcinoma RSNA Case Collection2022Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breastRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 4, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

Characterizing the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Plastic Surgery Literature.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically impacted the plastic surgery community across the globe, and it has been the center of discussion in public and private discourse throughout the year.1 Given this deep interest in the COVID-19 pandemic, we hypothesized that articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic in the plastic surgery literature would garner higher levels of attention than other articles. Using the Journal Citation Reports, 15 plastic surgery journals with the highest impact factor in 2019 were selected and all articles published in these journals in 2020 were extracted.2 For the 6815 articles identified, number of citations accrued and Altmetric score, which is a weighted calculation of the attention an article receives online, were recorded.3 COVID-19–related articles were identified by searching titles for “COVID,” “SARS,” “pandemic,” “corona,” “COVID-19,” or “SARS-CoV-2,” resulting in a total of 220 articles (3.2 percent). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess Altmetric score and citations for COVID-19–related versus non–COVID-19 articles. For the COVID-19–related articles, we also assessed whether Altmetric score and citations varied by the type of article (commentary, original article, or guidelines), subspecialty of plastic surgery to which the article pertained, and the quarter of the year in which it was published. Despite the pandemic being a hot topic of discussion, the majority (n = 137, 62 percent) of COVID-19–related articles had an Almetric score of zero, meaning they were not disseminated at all on social media, news outlets, or other electronic forms of media. When compared to non–COVID-19 articles, however, COVID-19–related articles had a higher average Altmetric score (2.1 versus 1.4, p < 0.001, Fig. 1). Of the COVID-19–related articles, original articles had higher Altmetric scores as compared to editorials and guidelines (3.8 versus 1.3 and 1.5, respectively, p < 0.001). There was no association between Altmetric score and specialty (p = 0.24) or quarter of publication (p = 0.40).Fig. 1.: Altmetric score by article type. COVID-19–related articles had higher Altmetric scores than non–COVID-19 articles.COVID-19–related articles accrued a total of 247 citations, with an average of 1.1 citations per article, which is higher than the 0.2 citations non–COVID-19 articles accrued (p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). Among the COVID-19–related articles, over 65 percent of articles had zero citations and four articles alone accounted for 24 percent of all citations. Articles published earlier in the year had more citations than those published later (p < 0.001), which is expected as it takes time for articles to accrue citations. There was no association between number of citations and specialty (p = 0.16) or article type (p = 0.27).Fig. 2.: Number of citations by article type. COVID-19–related articles accrued more citations than non–COVID-19 articles.The high levels of interest in the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in the plastic surgery literature. Altmetric score, a surrogate for interest and influence, was higher for COVID-19–related articles and highest for studies that analyzed original data.1 Impact, as measured by citations, was also higher for COVID-19–related articles, suggesting there was increased discussion among academics about the pandemic and its ramifications on plastic surgery. The impact and influence of the COVID-19 pandemic were felt by the plastic surgery community worldwide and also depicted in the literature. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

The long-term influence of Open Access on the scientific and social impact of dental journal articles: An updated analysis

ObjectivesTo investigate whether dental journal articles that are Open Access (OA) receive greater citation counts and higher Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) than articles that are non-OA in the long term. MethodsEligible dental journal articles published in 2013 were identified via PubMed, and Web of science, Unpaywall and corresponding URLs were manually checked to determine the OA status of each included article 7 years after publication. Citation counts were extracted from Web of Science and Scopus, and AAS was harvested from the Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable general linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between OA and citation count, as well as between OA and AAS. ResultsAmong the 755 included articles, 309 (40.9%) were freely available online. Among the 309 OA articles, articles available from publishers accounted for 64.4% (199/309) of all OA articles, and those available through self-archiving accounted for 56.0% (173/309). According to regression analyses, OA articles had significantly greater citation counts (P = 0.001) and AAS (P < 0.001) than non-OA articles. Conclusions/clinical significanceIn the field of dentistry, about 41% of journal articles are OA 7 years after publication, and OA articles available from the publishers are more common than those from authors through self-archiving. OA articles tend to have greater scientific and social impact than non-OA articles in the long term.

Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: an altmetric study.

Objective:This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores.Methods:Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation).Results:Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media.Conclusions:These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.

Radiologic Approach for Skin US.

Radiologic Approach for Skin US.

High social media attention scores are not reflective of study quality: an altmetrics-based content analysis.

Recent literature has demonstrated the associations between social media attention, as measured by altmetric attention score (AAS), and higher citation rates across medical disciplines. Despite increasing use of AAS, an understanding of factors associated with higher AAS and social media attention remains lacking. Furthermore, if this increased attention correlates with a higher methodological quality and lower biases has not been determined. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine the relationship between methodological quality, study biases and the AAS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All RCTs from 2016 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Society (JAMA), and Lancet were extracted and the(1) AAS; (2) Methodological Bias (JADAD Scale); Study Bias (Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for RCTs)recorded. A total of 296 RCTs with a median (range) AAS and citation rate per article of 234.0(7-4079) and 165.0(4-3257), respectively, were included. The AAS was positively associated with citation rate (β 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.29; P < 0.001). Methodological bias was not associated with the AAS (β -36.3, 95% CI -83.5-10.9; P = 0.131), but was negatively associated with higher citation rates (β -66.4, 95% CI -106.0 to -26.9; P = 0.001). The number of study biases was not associated with the AAS (β 43.7, 95% CI -6.3-93.7;P = 0.086), but was positively associated with a higher citation rate (β 64.5, 95% CI 22.4-106.6; P = 0.003). The online attention of RCTs in medical journals was not necessarily reflective of high methodological quality and minimal study biases, but was associated with higher citation rates. Researchers and clinicians should critically examine each article despite the amount of online attention an article receives as the AAS does not necessarily reflect article quality.

Article processing charges, altmetrics and citation impact: Is there an economic rationale?

The present study aims to analyze (1) the relationship between Citation Normalized Score of scientific publications and Article Processing Charges (APCs) of Gold Open Access (OA) publications (2) the determinants of APCs. To do so, we used APCs information provided by the OpenAPC database, citation scores of publications from the WoS database and, for Altmetrics, data from Altmetrics.com database, over the period from 2006 to 2019 for 83,752 articles published in 4751 journals belonging to 267 distinct publishers. Results show that contrary to common belief, paying high APCs does not necessarily increase the impact of publications. First, large publishers with high impact are not the most expensive. Second, publishers with the highest APCs are not necessarily the best in terms of impact. Correlation between APCs and impact is moderate. Regarding the determinants, results indicate that APCs are on average 50% higher in hybrid journals than in full OA journals. The results also suggest that Altmetrics do not have a great impact: OA articles that have garnered the most attention on internet are articles with relatively low APCs. Another interesting result is that the "number of readers" indicator is more effective as it is more correlated with classic bibliometrics indicators than the Altmetrics score.

ALTMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE MOST-CITED 100 ARTICLES ON THE RETINA PUBLISHED BETWEEN 2010 AND 2020.

Altmetric analysis is a way of assessing the social impact of scientific articles. In this study, we aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited articles on the topic of the retina published in ophthalmology journals in traditional metrics and altmetrics. The term "retina" was searched in the Web of Science database, and articles published in ophthalmology journals were filtered out. A total of 100 highly cited articles from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated for bibliographic data and altmetrics. First, descriptive statistics and then correlation analysis between traditional bibliographies and altmetrics were performed. According to the Web of Science search, the number of citations of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 809 to 137. The altmetric scores of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 0 to 1,340. There was no statistically significant correlation between the altmetric scores and the number of citations, but there was a statistically weak correlation between the altmetric scores and the average citations per year, H index, impact factor, and number of years since publication. Altmetrics is not sufficient to determine the scientific value of articles and can be affected by many factors, unlike traditional bibliometrics. However, being a good communicator in social media can support scientific productivity and create social impact.

Long-term Association of Altmetric Attention Scores With Citations in Selected Major Pharmacy Journals

Objective. To determine the long-term change in the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and its components, as well as the impact of higher AAS on citation count for articles published in major pharmacy journals.Methods. This study evaluated articles from pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to their AAS in the year 2017. Correlation between the AAS and number of citations (through November 2020) was assessed using the Spearman's correlation test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare the AAS across journals.Results. The median three-year AAS and citation count per article was 20 (25th, 75th percentile=15, 28) and 11 (6, 18), respectively. Between November 2018 and November 2020, there was no significant change in the median AAS for the 137 included articles. The only change in the AAS components was an increase in the number of Mendeley readers (22 [13, 34]). The median number of citations per article also increased (8 [4, 14]). We found a significant association between the three-year AAS and the three-year number of citations. The three-year number of Mendeley readers was associated with an increase in the 3-year number of citations. The mean three-year AAS was highest with articles published in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, while the mean three-year number of citations was highest for articles published in PharmacotherapyConclusion. Higher AAS scores appear to be associated with the number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals within three years of publication.

Promoting Your Scholarly Work to Increase Awareness and Impact.

Promoting Your Scholarly Work to Increase Awareness and Impact.

Altmetrics analysis of selected articles in the field of social sciences

PurposeThis study aims to measure the impact of the selected papers in the field of social sciences indexed in Scopus using altmetrics tools.Design/methodology/approachThe research community consists of the articles of the Iranian researchers in the field of social sciences indexed in the Scopus database in 2014–2018. Some of the most important altmetric service providers have been used to assess the presence of the research outputs in the social media and their impact assessment. Also, the relationship between variables such as scientific collaboration of researchers, open access journals and the quality of research journals with altmetric activity have been investigated through appropriate correlation tests.FindingsThe findings indicated that the most important social media publishing Iranian articles are Mendeley, Twitter and Facebook. The results of the correlation test showed a statistically significant positive and weak relationship between the scientific collaboration of researchers and their altmetric activity. Also, there is a significant and weak statistical relation between journal openness and the altmetric scores. In this study, the findings suggest that the published articles in the journals with higher quality indicators have higher altmetric scores and are more likely to be present in social media.Research implicationsIn this study, the social network indicators have been introduced as a solution to examine the effectiveness of research activities on social media. These indicators can be used to evaluate the impact and usefulness of the articles and other scientific outputs with the aim of completing and eliminating the shortcomings of traditional scientometrics indicators. What distinguishes altmetric criteria from other criteria related to the scientometric studies is the speed, ease and transparency of these scales. This allows the publications to be evaluated regardless of their formal form and in the shortest possible time, and in addition to the scientific impact, the social impact of the works is also measured.Originality/valueThe results of these studies show that using altmetric service providers not only reflects the social impact of publications on authors in different subject areas but also helps libraries, universities, research organizations and politicians in planning, budgeting and allocating resources.

Outreach and Post-Publication Impact of Soil Erosion Modelling Literature

Back in the 1930s, the aphorism “publish or perish” first appeared in an academic context. Today, this phrase is becoming a harsh reality in several academic environments, and scientists are giving increasing attention to publishing and disseminating their scientific work. Soil erosion modelers make no exception. With the introduction of the bibliometric field, the evaluation of the impact of a piece of scientific work becomes more articulated. The post-publication impact of the research became an important aspect too. In this study, we analyse the outreach and the impact of the literature on soil erosion modelling using the altmetric database, i.e., Altmetric. In our analysis, we use only a small fraction (around 15%) of Global Applications of Soil Erosion Modelling Tracker (GASEMT) papers because only 257 papers out of 1697 had an Altmetric Score (AS) larger than 0. We observed that media and policy documents mentioned more frequently literature dealing with global-scale assessments and future projection studies than local-scale ones. Papers that are frequently cited by researchers do not necessarily also yield high media and policy outreach. The GASEMT papers that had an AS larger than 0 were, on average, mentioned by one policy document and five Twitter users and had 100 Mendeley readers. Only around 5% and 9% of papers with AS &gt; 0 appeared in news articles and blogs, respectively. However, this percentage was around 45% for Twitter and policy mentions. The top GASEMT paper’s upper bound was around 1 million Twitter followers, while this number was around 10,000 for the 10th ranked GASEMT paper. The exponentially increasing trend for erosion modelling papers having an AS has been confirmed, as during the last 3 years (2014–2017), we estimated that the number of entries had doubled compared to 2011–2014 and quadrupled if we compare it with 2008–2011.

Updating the landmark literature for the practice of geriatrics: Notable articles from 2012-2019.

Remaining current on the latest advances in the peer-reviewed literature is a basic tenant of medical education and evidence-based practice. We updated an important prior publication (Vaughan, et al.) identifying landmark articles in geriatric medicine by considering the influence of altmetrics and updating the list with notable articles published between 2012 and 2019. Articles were identified by searching Web of Science and Scopus for highly cited articles clinically relevant to geriatrics or gerontology and by searching the Altmetric Explorer database for relevant articles with high altmetric scores. The results of the literature search were screened and evaluated using a bibliometric score consisting of an adjusted journal impact factor, citation count, and altmetric score. The top 12 notable articles in geriatrics were selected by a consensus panel and ranked using an expert opinion survey. This process reinforces the concept of combining subjective and objective measures to identify notable articles to be used for the education of healthcare professionals in geriatrics principles of care for older adults. While our update was performed approximately 9 years after the initial identification of landmark articles, we propose that future updates are conducted at an interval of every 5 years by the governance of a national professional society.