Altmetric Score Research Articles

Social media engagement of supportive care publications in oncology

ImportanceThere is an increasing number of cancer ‘survivors’ and increasing research into supportive care. However, it is unknown how patterns of attention and citation differ between supportive and non-supportive cancer care research. We sought to estimate the engagement of high-impact studies of supportive compared to non-supportive cancer care papers. MethodsIn a cross-sectional review of top oncology journals (2016–2023), we reviewed studies examining supportive care strategies and a frequency-matched random sampling of studies on non-supportive interventions. We compared data on social engagement metrics, as represented by Altmetric scores and citations and funding status, by supportive care or non-supportive care articles. ResultsWe found overall Altmetric scores were no different between articles that did not test supportive care and those that did, with a numerically higher score for supportive care articles (86.0 vs 102; p=0.416). Other bibliometric statistics (such as the number of blogs, number of X users, and the number of X posts) obtained from Altmetric did not differ significantly between the two groups. Non-supportive cancer care papers had a significantly higher number of citations than supportive cancer care papers (45.6 in supportive care vs 141 in non-supportive care papers; p<0.001). A greater proportion of non-supportive cancer care papers were also supported by pharmaceutical companies compared to supportive cancer care papers (54.2 % vs 15.3 %; p<0.001). ConclusionThough social media engagement is similar between supportive and non-supportive cancer care papers in high-impact journals, there is a significant difference in support from pharmaceutical companies and the number of citations.

Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Social media use has potential to facilitate the rapid dissemination of research evidence to busy health and social care practitioners. This study aims to quantitatively synthesize evidence of the between- and within-group effectiveness of social media for dissemination of research evidence to health and social care practitioners. It also compared effectiveness between different social media platforms, formats, and strategies. We searched electronic databases for articles in English that were published between January 1, 2010, and January 10, 2023, and that evaluated social media interventions for disseminating research evidence to qualified, postregistration health and social care practitioners in measures of reach, engagement, direct dissemination, or impact. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were carried out by at least 2 independent reviewers. Meta-analyses of standardized pooled effects were carried out for between- and within-group effectiveness of social media and comparisons between platforms, formats, and strategies. Certainty of evidence for outcomes was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. In total, 50 mixed-quality articles that were heterogeneous in design and outcome were included (n=9, 18% were randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Reach (measured in number of practitioners, impressions, or post views) was reported in 26 studies. Engagement (measured in likes or post interactions) was evaluated in 21 studies. Direct dissemination (measured in link clicks, article views, downloads, or altmetric attention score) was analyzed in 23 studies (8 RCTs). Impact (measured in citations or measures of thinking and practice) was reported in 13 studies. Included studies almost universally indicated effects in favor of social media interventions, although effect sizes varied. Cumulative evidence indicated moderate certainty of large and moderate between-group effects of social media interventions on direct dissemination (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.88; P=.02) and impact (SMD 0.76; P<.001). After social media interventions, cumulative evidence showed moderate certainty of large within-group effects on reach (SMD 1.99; P<.001), engagement (SMD 3.74; P<.001), and direct dissemination (SMD 0.82; P=.004) and low certainty of a small within-group effect on impacting thinking or practice (SMD 0.45; P=.02). There was also evidence for the effectiveness of using multiple social media platforms (including Twitter, subsequently rebranded X; and Facebook), images (particularly infographics), and intensive social media strategies with frequent, daily posts and involving influential others. No included studies tested the dissemination of research evidence to social care practitioners. Social media was effective for disseminating research evidence to health care practitioners. More intense social media campaigns using specific platforms, formats, and strategies may be more effective than less intense interventions. Implications include recommendations for effective dissemination of research evidence to health care practitioners and further RCTs in this field, particularly investigating the dissemination of social care research. PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022378793; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=378793. RR2-10.2196/45684.

ESPR chronicles: unveiling environmental and pollution science trends across time

This study explores current research trends in environmental studies, emphasizing the importance of addressing climate change through effective strategies and highlighting the crucial role of circular economy principles and resource management in achieving sustainability goals. It aims to investigate emerging patterns and analyze the altmetric impact of published research in the field of environment and pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR), a research journal published by Springer since January 1994, serves as a cornerstone for scholarly discourse in this field. The first volume of ESPR was released in January 1994, and since then, all of the information has been indexed by significant databases like OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service, SCOPUS, and DIMENSIONS, amongst others. ESPR is one of the leading journals with a five-year impact factor of 5.4 and 1.01 SJR Q1 quartile as of 2023, with an h-index of 179. The journal has published influential articles that garnered high altmetric scores, indicating online attention and engagement, although there is a notable disparity between altmetric scores and total citations. Most of the highly cited articles cover various topics, including eutrophication, electrochemical advanced oxidation processes, insecticides, and phytoremediation. Most publications fall under environmental sciences, followed by pollution and contamination. Chinese institutions have substantially contributed to the journal, indicating a strong emphasis on environmental and pollution research in China. Our findings reveal significant growth in publication output and citation rates, alongside a notable disparity between traditional citation metrics and altmetrics, underscoring the need for comprehensive impact assessment methodologies.

Predictors of citations and altmetric scores in general surgery literature

Predictors of citations and altmetric scores in general surgery literature

The 100 Most Cited Androgenetic Alopecia Articles: An Analysis of Altmetrics Data from 2015 to 2022

Introduction: Androgenetic alopecia is the most common type of hair loss, and with increasing media integration in medicine, understanding social media consumption of literature is invaluable. Altmetric Attention Score analysis can quantify factors impacting article distribution on media platforms. Methods: To determine factors influencing literature dissemination and reader demographics, a bibliometric analysis was performed on the 100 most cited androgenetic alopecia articles. Results: Articles with top 25th percentile Altmetric Attention Scores were cited more frequently (41.76 vs. 24.59, p < 0.05). Open-access articles had lower odds of being read by healthcare professionals (aOR = 0.16, p < 0.05), while funded studies and journal impact factor increased odds of readership (aOR = 5.80; aOR = 1.55; p < 0.05 for both). Scientists and healthcare professionals showed interest in publications addressing 5α-reductase inhibitors (aOR = 26.08; aOR = 6.13; p < 0.05 for both). Articles with high social media viewership were also highly cited in academic literature. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals appeared more discerning about article readership compared to the public. With many outlets for consumption of media, members of the public not involved in dermatology may have difficulty in identifying reliable sources of material. Overall, Altmetrics can help quantify readership trends and public interest in dermatology research.

Altmetric, Bibliometric, and Visualized Study of Top 100 Most Cited Papers in Digital Health

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the research movements in the Digital Health topic through the most cited 100 products. Material and Method: Top-100 list was obtained by the help of Web of Science Core Collection (www.webofknowledge.com) database. Bibliometric analysis was employed to analyze the documents in detail in the area in question. Altmetric attention score provided by altmetric analysis was utilized to demonstrate the effect of articles on social media. Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to reveal related factors of Citation Count and Altmetric Attention Score. Results: The most-cited 100 papers in Digital Health topic were observed to be published between 2010 and 2020. Mean and standard deviation of the Citation Counts were 141.4±78. A poor positive association is noted between Citation Count and Altmetric Attention Score (r=0.256, p=0.012). Multiple linear regression analysis findings show that “Q2 level (p=0.050)”, “AAS” (p=0.002”), “Since 2013 Usage Count (p

Online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThis cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis.ResultsOut of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1–132 studies, and half included 1–10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews.In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3–14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review).ConclusionsOnline attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality.Systematic review registrationThe study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/mpw8u/).

An Approach to Evaluate the Costs and Outputs of Academic Biobanks.

Academic biobanks commonly report sustainability challenges, which may be exacerbated by a lack of information on biobank value. To better understand the costs and supported outputs that contribute to biobank value, we developed a systematic, generalizable methodology to determine biobank inputs and publications arising from biobank-supported research. We then tested this in a small cohort (n = 12) of academic cancer biobanks in New South Wales, Australia. A proforma was developed to capture monetary and in-kind biobank costing data from biobank managers and publicly available sources. Participating biobanks were grouped and compared according to the following two classifications: open- versus restricted-access and high versus low total annual costs. Our methodology provides a feasible approach for capturing comprehensive costing data for a defined period. Characterization of biobanks using this approach showed that median total costs, as well as median staffing and in-kind costs, were comparable for open- and restricted-access biobanks, as were the quantity and journal impact metrics of supported publications. High- and low-cost biobanks supported similar median numbers of publications; however, high-cost biobanks supported publications with higher median journal impact factor and Altmetric scores. Overall, 9 of 10 biobanks had higher Field-Weighted Citation Impact scores than the global average for similar publications. This is the first tested, generalizable approach to analyze the costs and publications arising from biobank-supported research. By determining explicit cost and output data, academic biobanks, funders, and policymakers can engage in or support informed redirection of resourcing and/or benchmark setting with the aim of improving biobank support of research.

Analysis of 50 Most Cited Articles About Refractive Surgery From an Altmetric Perspective.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate an Altmetric analysis of the 50 most cited refractive surgery articles in Ophthalmology journals and to compare them with traditional metrics. The term "refractive surgery" was searched, using a time filter between 2010-2020 in the Web of Science core collection database. The 50 most cited articles between 2010 and 2020 were recorded. Descriptive statistics were performed. The Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the correlation between traditional metrics and Altmetrics. The Altmetric scores of the top 50 articles ranged from 0 to 25, and the median Altmetric score was 4. The citation numbers of the 50 articles ranged from 83 to 523, and the median citation number was 119.5. The most cited article topic was "Toric Intraocular Lens"; the topics with the highest Altmetric scores were "Toric Intraocular Lens" and "Trifocal Intraocular Lens". There was no significant correlation between Altmetric scores and number of citations. There was a weak correlation between Altmetric scores and the average citation per year. The Altmetric score is insufficient, compared with traditional metrics, to show the scientific value of articles on refractive surgery. Altmetrics can be used to supplement traditional metrics.

Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews: frequency, determinants, stages, barriers, and dissemination

ObjectivesTo investigate the frequency, determinants, stages, and barriers of patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews and to explore its association with the dissemination of reviews. Study Design and SettingWe examined systematic reviews that required the inclusion of a PPI declaration, published in The BMJ between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the association between PPI and key variables. We investigated the association between PPI and the dissemination of reviews using Altmetric scores, citations, and full-text views. ResultsA total of 217 systematic reviews were included, of which 56 (25.8%, 95% CI 20.0%–31.6%) included PPI, with a steady increase from 5.9% (1/17) in 2015 to 44.4% (4/35) in 2022. Of the 217 systematic reviews, 160 (73.7%) involved methodologists as co-authors. Factors significantly associated with a higher proportion of PPI included the publication year after 2019 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.26–4.83), the involvement of methodologist (aOR 3.08; 95% CI 1.27–7.47), and being led by researchers from high-income countries (aOR 5.47; 95% CI 1.23–24.30). Reviews that included PPI had higher Altmetric scores per month (6.6 vs 3.4, P = .002) and more monthly full-text (1048.6 vs 636.5, P < .001) and PDF (217.7 vs 129.0, P < .001) views than reviews without PPI. However, there was no difference in the monthly citations (2.2 vs 2.0, P = .365) between reviews with and without PPI. ConclusionThe proportion of systematic reviews reporting PPI in The BMJ has increased over time, possibly due to journal policies, but it still remains at a low level. Reviews led by researchers from high-income countries or involving methodologists are associated with a higher frequency of PPI within The BMJ. Furthermore, reviews incorporating PPI within The BMJ have a higher potential for broad dissemination.

167 An Evaluation of Altmetric Attention using Network Science and Natural Language Processing

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Our project aims to assess the composition or characteristics of research papers that score high on alternative metrics. These alternative metrics including the number of newspaper mentions, social media mentions, and the attention score as catalogued on Altmetric, a tool used to document community attention for a given research paper. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our study intends to 1) Utilize topic modeling to identify prevalent themes on Altmetric, and 2) Apply network analysis to elucidate the interconnectedness among universities, funding sources, journals, and publishers associated with high-attention papers. 3) Examine how these patterns vary when attention metrics shift, such as social media mentions, newspaper mentions, or the Altmetric score. We'll first perform this analysis on all types of papers and then limit the networks to Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, and Public and Allied Health Sciences to help inform what health topics garner attention. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our initial Altmetric topic models revealed sustained attention for COVID-19 and vaccination-related publications well beyond the pandemic (specifically, papers from January 2023). Health topics like cancer, dementia, and obesity also garnered high attention. Additionally, political papers (elections, democracy), climate change, and battery research had notable attention values. Further analysis needs to be done to explain why these topics gain attention and the type of attention they garner. We will construct networks to see the relationship between attention and entities like universities, funding sources, journals, and publishers. This will identify whether certain clusters of these entities produce papers with high attention or if attention is distributed evenly amoung them. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: To gauge the broader impact of scholarly research alternative metrics beyond citations are needed. Altmetric is used widely by CTSA’s to measure the community interest in research. Understanding the types of research that gain traction on Altmetric can help researchers understand how to garner interest from the community.

Auditing the Representation of Female Athletes in Sports Medicine Research: Fifth-Metatarsal Fractures.

Female representation within athletics has increased as a result of Title IX, rising popularity, demand for equal compensation, and greater participation in multiple sports. Despite this, gender disparities in sports medicine research are apparent. This project serves to review the literature available on fifth-metatarsal fractures and assess the representation of female athletes in current literature. We used a standardized protocol to audit the representation of female athletes in sports science and sports medicine research for fifth-metatarsal fractures. Primary factors included population, athletic caliber, menstrual status, research theme, sample of males and females, journal impact factor, and Altmetric score. Thirty articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 472 fifth-metatarsal fractures were identified, with 373 of 472 fractures (79%) occurring in males and 99 of 472 (21%) in females. The majority of studies (18/30, 60%) were mixed cohort, followed by 10 male only (33.33%), 1 female only (3.33%), and 1 male vs female (3.33%). Out of 831 total patients in the 18 mixed-cohort studies, 605 of 831 patients (72.8%) were male and 226 of 831 patients (27%) were female. All 18 mixed-sex cohorts investigated health outcomes. Male-only studies evaluated health outcomes and performance metrics. No studies investigated female performance. The one female-only study investigated health outcomes and was the only study to account for menstrual status. There was a single metatarsal fracture in this study population. Females are underrepresented in research regarding sports science and sports medicine research for fifth-metatarsal fractures. Research focused on female-only fifth-metatarsal fracture studies exploring the potential impact of female sex-specific factors such as menstrual status in study design are needed.

112 Flight Tracker: A REDCap Tool to Streamline Career Development Grant Preparation and Reporting

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Compiling information about characteristics and progress of scholars is required for career development applications and progress reports. The range of information is substantial, and preparation is onerous. We sought to create a tool to facilitate gathering key data about trainees and mentors who participate in programs like NIH K- and T-awards. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Using the REDCap platform, we developed forms and surveys to support intake of applicants, updates from scholars, and information about their participation in activities and use of resources. We deployed application programming interfaces (APIs) to automate capture of publicly available data about publications, impact metrics, and federal grant funding. Similar tools capture descriptions of mentor expertise including grant funding, prior trainees, and publications with mentees We also built modules to 1) allow connection to institutional grant and contract data to capture foundation and other funding; 2) pre-populate follow-up surveys to update information about career trajectories with minimal scholar effort; and 3) support mentee-mentor agreements as living documents. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: After a pilot period at our institution, we disseminated Flight Tracker to more than 50 academic institutions, most of whom are CTSA hubs. They track scholars in TL1/T32s, KL2/K12s, MSTP programs, and academic groups. Beyond federal reporting, uses now include publication impact factors (relative citation ratios, Altmetrics scores), grant funding of groups, maps of network relationships among investigators, scholar receipt of internal pilot awards, and statistics about transition to independence and time-to-promotion. Scholars can be separated into smaller cohorts by demographics, training dates, and funding dates. Over 34,000 scholars are tracked nationally among over 260 programs. Having structured data supports program evaluation, continuous improvements, and documents program strengths. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We informally estimate Flight Tracker reduces staff and leadership effort in preparation of program data by 75%, preserving time to focus on service to scholars. Ready access to data over time and within and across institutions creates new opportunities for collaborative data analysis to support evidence-based career development.

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams

AbstractIntroductionSystematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.MethodsA sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).ResultsOne‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.ConclusionJournals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications. To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs. This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022. Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores. This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

Publication Rates of Podium Presentations at an Annual Orthopedic Surgery Resident and Fellow Research Symposium.

Introduction Research is an important aspect of residency and fellowship programs across the country. Developing strategies to foster research productivity is worthwhile. An annual research project is one strategy that some programs implement. Methods All resident and fellow (Sports Medicine, Adult Reconstruction, Spine) presentations at an orthopedic surgery department's annual research symposium from June 2016 through June 2021 were identified. Abstract titles, title keywords, and author names were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar to identify the presence of a peer-reviewed publication. Using the total number of research symposium presentations given, the publication rate was calculated for each year, as well as collectively for 2016 to 2021. In addition to publication rate, first author percent, number of citations, Altmetric score, and journal impact factor were recorded. Current PGY-2 through PGY-5 residents completed a survey to assess the perceived value of the annual research symposium. Results Ninety-eight research symposium presentations were reviewed (69 residents, 29 fellows). Forty (58%) resident studies were published and 28 were first-author publications (70%). Thirteen (45%) fellow studies were published and seven were first-author publications (54%). Combining residents and fellows, the overall publication rate was 54% (53/98), and 66% of these (35/53) were first-author publications. There was a wide range of published manuscript journal impact factors, Altmetric scores, and number of citations. All residents surveyed reported finding value in the research symposium. Conclusion The overall publication rate of presentations at an annual orthopedic surgery department research symposium between 2016 and 2021 was 54%, consistent with publication rates reported at National Orthopedic Surgery Society meetings. All residents reported finding value in the annual research symposium.The results of this study support the academic value of implementing a required annual research project and may provide a useful gauge to inform residency and fellowship curricula at other institutions.

Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion.

Multiple studies across a variety of scientific disciplines have shown that the number of times that a paper is shared on Twitter (now called X) is correlated with the number of citations that paper receives. However, these studies were not designed to answer whether tweeting about scientific papers causes an increase in citations, or whether they were simply highlighting that some papers have higher relevance, importance or quality and are therefore both tweeted about more and cited more. The authors of this study are leading science communicators on Twitter from several life science disciplines, with substantially higher follower counts than the average scientist, making us uniquely placed to address this question. We conducted a three-year-long controlled experiment, randomly selecting five articles published in the same month and journal, and randomly tweeting one while retaining the others as controls. This process was repeated for 10 articles from each of 11 journals, recording Altmetric scores, number of tweets, and citation counts before and after tweeting. Randomization tests revealed that tweeted articles were downloaded 2.6-3.9 times more often than controls immediately after tweeting, and retained significantly higher Altmetric scores (+81%) and number of tweets (+105%) three years after tweeting. However, while some tweeted papers were cited more than their respective control papers published in the same journal and month, the overall increase in citation counts after three years (+7% for Web of Science and +12% for Google Scholar) was not statistically significant (p > 0.15). Therefore while discussing science on social media has many professional and societal benefits (and has been a lot of fun), increasing the citation rate of a scientist's papers is likely not among them.

Auditing the Representation of Females Versus Males in Heat Adaptation Research.

The aim of this audit was to quantify female representation in research on heat adaptation. Using a standardized audit tool, the PubMed database was searched for heat adaptation literature from inception to February 2023. Studies were included if they investigated heat adaptation among female and male adults (≥18-50years) who were free from noncommunicable diseases, with heat adaptation the primary or secondary outcome of interest. The number and sex of participants, athletic caliber, menstrual status, research theme, journal impact factor, Altmetric score, Field-Weighted Citation Impact, and type of heat exposure were extracted. A total of 477 studies were identified in this audit, including 7,707 participants with ∼13% of these being female. Most studies investigated male-only cohorts (∼74%, n = 5,672 males), with ∼5% (n = 360 females) including female-only cohorts. Of the 126 studies that included females, only 10% provided some evidence of appropriate methodological control to account for ovarian hormone status, with no study meeting best-practice recommendations. Of the included female participants, 40% were able to be classified to an athletic caliber, with 67% of these being allocated to Tier 2 (i.e.,trained/developmental) or below. Exercise heat acclimation was the dominant method of heat exposure (437 interventions), with 21 studies investigating sex differences in exercise heat acclimation interventions. We recommend that future research on heat adaptation in female participants use methodological approaches that consider the potential impact of sexual dimorphism on study outcomes to provide evidence-based guidelines for female athletes preparing for exercise or competition in hot conditions.

The bibliometric and altmetric analysis of chronic traumatic encephalopathy research: how great is the impact?

The study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) has received great attention from academia and the general public. This study aims to analyze the research productivity on CTE and investigate the most discussed articles in academia and the general public by conducting bibliometric and altmetric analyses. Data of articles were obtained from the Web of Science Core Databases and Altmetric Explore. VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze and visualize the articles. The correlation between Altmetric attention scores (AAS) and citation counts were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient. 788 publications of CTE were eventually gathered and analyzed, and 100 articles with highest citation counts (Top-cited) and 100 articles with highest AASs (Top-AAS) were then identified. The keywords density map showed both the general public and the scientists were particularly interested in the risk factors and pathology of CTE, and scientists were interested in the causes and characteristics of neurodegenerative diseases while the public became increasingly concerned about the detection and prevention of CTE. By examining the shared characteristics of the 44 articles (High-High articles) that overlapped between Top-cited and Top-AAS articles, we identified certain traits that may potentially contribute to their high citation rates and high AASs. Besides, significant positive correlations with varied strength between AAS and citation were observed in the 788 articles, Top-cited, Top-AAS and High-High datasets. This study is the first to link bibliometric and altmetric analyses for CTE publications, which may provide deeper understanding of the attention of the scientists and the general public pay to the study of CTE, and offer some guidance and inspiration for future CTE in the selection of research topics and directions.

Systemic sclerosis associated respiratory involvement: Scopus-based analysis of articles in 2013-2022.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), a complex autoimmune disorder, manifests as a convergence of rheumatologic, dermatologic, and pulmonary challenges. Among the severe complications contributing to morbidity and mortality are SSc Associated Interstitial Lung Disease (SSc-ILD) and pulmonary hypertension. Over the past decade, research on pulmonary involvement in SSc has intensified, leading to a heightened understanding of its pathogenesis, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic strategies. This study aims to provide a data-driven overview of the current state of systemic sclerosis research, identifying emerging trends and fostering informed decisions regarding resource allocation and research priorities. A literature search was conducted in the Scopus database, using MESH keywords such as "systemic sclerosis" AND "lungs" OR "pulmonary hypertension" OR "interstitial lung disease". After applying exclusion criteria, a thorough analysis was performed, considering factors such as document category, authorship, journal source, citation frequency, country of publication, language, and keywords. The bibliometric analysis utilized Scopus as the preferred database, leveraging its extensive coverage, user-friendly interface, and commitment to data accuracy. Visual networks were constructed using VOSviewer software to map the relationships between keywords, countries, and authors. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were employed to assess the social impact of articles. The analysis revealed a total of 2538 scholarly items, with 55.7% identified as open access. The USA (n = 532), Italy (n = 458), France (n = 304), Japan (n = 271), and the UK (n = 236) emerged as primary contributors, with English being the predominant language. A notable upward tendency in annual publication and citation scores indicated sustained interest and relevance in SSc-ILD research. The top journals, including Rheumatology United Kingdom, Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, Clinical Rheumatology, Arthritis and Rheumatology, and Journal of Rheumatology, played a pivotal role in scholarly output. Original Articles (n = 1795; 70.7%) constituted the majority of publications, followed by Reviews, Letters, Notes, and Editorials. The analysis of publication impact within different scholarly formats revealed varying citation patterns, with Original Articles and Reviews leading in influence. The identification of influential research hubs and key contributors provided insights into collaborative efforts and geographic distribution. A strong correlation (rho = 0.612, p < 0.001) was observed between the quantity of Mendeley readers and the citations received by scholarly articles. This bibliometric analysis offers a comprehensive overview of SSc-ILD research, highlighting its dynamic and interdisciplinary nature. The surge in publications, citation scores, and the identification of key contributors underscore the continued relevance and impact of this field. The nuanced relationships between social attention and scientific recognition, as revealed by Mendeley readership and AAS, contribute to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted nature of scholarly impact.