Higher Altmetric Scores Research Articles

Altmetric analysis of the contemporary scientific literature in Endodontology.

To analyse and visualize the knowledge structure of scientific articles in the field of Endodontology with high altmetric attention scores to discover hot topics, active researchers and the journals involved. On 5 June 2019, the altmetric database (Altmetric LLP, London, UK) was searched using the titles of 11 endodontic journals. Bibliometric data from endodontic articles and journals with an altmetric score >5 (top 5%) were retrieved from PubMed and analysed using the VOSviewer. Science mapping of articles with an altmetric score >5 at two levels was created: author keywords co-occurrence and co-authorship network analysis. Of the 2197 articles in the field of Endodontology identified with altmetrics, 192 had altmetric scores >5 (top 5%). Considering the total mentions amongst all altmetric resources, the Journal of Endodontics had the highest rank followed by the International Endodontic Journal and Australian Endodontic Journal. Twitter was the most popular altmetric data resource followed by patents and Facebook. Meta-analysis, systematic review and pulpitis were the hot topics. At the author level, Dummer P.M.H had the greatest influence on the network. There was no significant correlation between altmetric score and citations count (P>0.05). Mendeley mentions correlated with citations (P<0.05). Overall, the altmetric scores of topics within Endodontology were low, possibly due to the specific and specialized nature of the specialty, as well as the difficulty members of the public probably have in understanding endodontic research. Journals and researchers with a focus on Endodontology would have more influence if they were to set-up their own social media profiles and thus enhance their visibility and social impact by immediately sharing research findings and communicating with their network and audience.

Do altmetrics correlate with citations? A study based on the 1,000 most-cited articles

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to study the presence of highly cited papers of Nature in social media websites and tools. It also tries to examine the correlation between altmetric and bibliometric indicators.Design/methodology/approachThis descriptive study was carried out using altmetric indicators. The research sample consisted of 1,000 most-cited articles in Nature. In February 2019, the bibliographic information of these articles was extracted from the Scopus database. Then, the titles of all articles were manually searched on Google, and by referring to the article in the journal website and altmetric institution, the data related to social media presence and altmetric score of articles were collected. The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS.FindingsAccording to the results of the study, from 1,000 articles, 989 of them (98.9 per cent) were mentioned at least once in different social media websites and tools. The most used altmetric source in highly cited articles was Mendeley (98.9 per cent), followed by Citeulike (79.8 per cent) and Wikipedia (69.4 per cent). Most Tweets, blog posts, Facebook posts, news stories, readers in Mendeley, Citeulike and Connotea and Wikipedia citations belonged to the article titled “Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search”. The highest altmetric score was 3,135 which belonged to this paper. Most tweeters and articles’ readers were from the USA. The membership type of the tweeters was public membership. In terms of fields of study, most readers were PhD students in Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Finally, the results of Spearman’s Correlation revealed positive significant statistical correlation between all altmetric indicators and received citations of highly cited articles (p-value = 0.0001).Practical implicationsThe results of this study can help researchers, editors and editorial boards of journals better understand the importance and benefits of using social media and tools to publish articles.Originality/valueAltmetrics is a relatively new field, and in particular, there are not many studies related to the presence of articles in various social media until now. Accordingly, in this study, a comprehensive altmetric analysis was carried out on 1000 most-cited articles of one of the world's most reliable journals.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-IMPACT ARTICLES IN THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY

The dissemination of research findings has changed significantly with the growing influence of social media. In this evolving paradigm, new metrics have been developed to better characterize an article’s impact across multiple platforms. The Altmetric score is an algorithmically derived, weighted count of all article mentions across 17 domains including news outlets, policy documents, patents, Wikipedia, Twitter, and others. The purpose of this study was to examine author representation and article characteristics of high-impact publications from the Canadian Journal of Cardiology (CJC) over a longitudinal period. Altmetric scoring was used to identify the top 25 articles published in each calendar year between 2014 and 2018 in the CJC. Article characteristics, as well as first and last author demographics, were collected through publicly-available web-based resources. Geographic, institutional and inter-specialty collaboration was identified, and author gender-based differences were studied. Independent predictors of high Altmetric score (≥50) were identified through univariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 4547 articles published in CJC over the study period, 125 were analyzed. Mean Altmetric score in the sample was 70. These included 42 reviews or meta-analyses, 31 editorial or viewpoint articles, 26 original articles, 16 guidelines or position statements, 7 conference abstracts, and 3 case reports. The mean (± standard deviation) number of authors was 10 ± 15 and the mean number of institutions involved was 4 ± 5. Seventy-eight (62%) articles represented a collaboration between 2 or more institutions and 68 (54%) represented collaboration between 2 or more specialties. The majority (53%) of senior authors were based in Ontario or Québec (Panel A). Females accounted for 42 (34%) of first authors (Panel B) and 33 (26%) of senior authors over the entire period studied. On univariate logistic regression, first author presence on Twitter, senior author presence on Twitter, and senior author presence on the CJC editorial board were factors associated with high Altmetric scores. No article types were predictive of high Altmetric scores. Overall, top articles in the CJC attained high visibility from 2014 to 2018. However, among the highest-impact papers, female representation as first and/or senior authors was lower and did not appear to improve in this longitudinal analysis. Author presence on social media was associated with high Altmetric scores. These findings demonstrate that article dissemination through news outlets and social media sites represents an effective and evolving tool for increasing reach and knowledge translation.

Relationship between Altmetrics and Citations A Study on the Highly Cited Research Papers

&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; The present study aims to assess highly cited articles using altmetrics and citations and identify the relationship between them. The statistical population consists of all the highly cited articles on surgery indexed on the Web of Science. The number of article citations was measured using the Web of Science and the altmetric score of the articles using the Altmetric Bookmarklet. The analysis of the data was carried out using descriptive statistics and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Of the 1077 highly cited surgery articles, 62.74 per cent had an altmetric score. The highest number of received citations was 1787, and the highest altmetric score was 2019. A positive and significant correlation was observed between the number of citations and the policy-making documents, Wikipedia citations and CiteULike (P&lt;0.001). A positive but non-significant correlation was also observed between the number of citations and the number of Mendeley readers (r=0.02, P&gt;0.05). A poor, negative and significant correlations were observed between the number of citations and the overall altmetric score of the highly cited surgery articles (r=-0.235, P&lt;0.001). The findings may be due to the different pattern of using social media by the surgery researchers compared to the researchers of other fields. Altmetrics can only be used to complement citations and not replace them.&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

Altmetric Versus Bibliometric Perspective Regarding Publication Impact and Force

BackgroundBibliometric and Altmetric analyses highlight key publications, which have been considered to be the most influential in their field. The hypothesis was that highly cited articles would correlate positively with levels of evidence and Altmetric scores (AS) and rank.MethodsSurgery as a search term was entered into Thomson Reuter’s Web of Science database to identify all English-language full articles. The 100 most cited articles were analysed by topic, journal, author, year, institution, and AS.ResultsBy bibliometric criteria, eligible articles numbered 286,122 and the median (range) citation number was 574 (446–5746). The most cited article (Dindo et al.) classified surgical complications by severity score (5746 citations). Annals of Surgery published most articles and received most citations (26,457). The country and year with most publications were the USA (n = 50) and 1999 (n = 11). By Altmetric criteria, the article with the highest AS was by Bigelow et al. (AS = 53, hypothermia’s role in cardiac surgery); Annals of Surgery published most articles, and the country and year with most publications were USA (n = 4) and 2007 (n = 3). Level-1-evidence articles numbered 13, but no correlation was found between evidence level and citation number (SCC 0.094, p = 0.352) or AS (SCC = 0.149, p = 0.244). Median AS was 0 (0–53), and in articles published after the year 2000, AS was associated with citation number (r = 0.461, p = 0.001) and citation rate index (r = 0.455, p = 0.002). AS was not associated with journal impact factor (r = 0.160, p = 0.118).ConclusionBibliometric and Altmetric analyses provide important but different perspectives regarding article impact, which are unrelated to evidence level.

The Great Chemistry Race

The Great Chemistry Race

The Use of Twitter by the Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Twitter Activity, Impact Factor, and Alternative Metrics.

AimSocial media (SoMe) platforms have become leading methods of communication and dissemination of scientific information in the medical community. They allow for immediate discussion and widespread engagement around important topics. It has been hypothesized that the activity on Twitter positively correlates with highly cited articles. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence and activity of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals on Twitter, with the hypothesis that impact factor is positively associated with Twitter usage.MethodsThe top 50 Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals, ranked by 2016 Impact Factor were analyzed. The Twitter profiles of each journal or affiliated society were identified. Other SoMe platforms used were also recorded. Twitonomy software (Digonomy Pty Ltd, New South Wales, Australia) was used to analyze the Twitter profiles over a one-year period. Twitter Klout Scores were recorded for each journal to approximate the SoMe influence. Altmetric Scores (the total number of mentions via alternative metrics) were also recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out to identify correlations between journal Impact Factors, SoMe activity, Twitter Klout Scores and Altmetric Scores. ResultsTwenty-two journals (44%) had dedicated Twitter profiles. Fourteen journals (28%) were associated with societies that had profiles and 14 journals (28%) had no Twitter presence. The mean Impact Factor overall was 2.16 +/- 0.14 (range, 1.07-5.16). The journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had higher Impact Factors than those without (mean 2.41 vs. 1.61; P=0.005). A greater number of Twitter followers were associated with higher Impact Factors (R2 0.317, P=0.03). Journals with higher Twitter Klout Scores had higher Impact Factors (R2 0.357, P=0.016). Altmetric Score was positively associated with Impact Factor (R2 0.310, P=0.015). Journals with higher numbers of retweets (virtual citations in the Twittersphere) had higher Altmetric Scores (R2 0.463, P=0.015).ConclusionTrauma and Orthopaedic Surgery journals with dedicated Twitter profiles have higher Impact Factors than those without. Altmetrics is likely to play a significant role in the literature evaluation going forward along with the traditional metrics. The engagement with Twitter by Trauma and Orthopaedic surgeons should be encouraged.

The impact of social media promotion with infographics and podcasts on research dissemination and readership.

In 2015 and 2016, the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) Social Media (SoMe) Team collaborated with established medical websites to promote CJEM articles using podcasts and infographics while tracking dissemination and readership. CJEM publications in the "Original Research" and "State of the Art" sections were selected by the SoMe Team for podcast and infographic promotion based on their perceived interest to emergency physicians. A control group was composed retrospectively of articles from the 2015 and 2016 issues with the highest Altmetric score that received standard Facebook and Twitter promotions. Studies on SoMe topics were excluded. Dissemination was quantified by January 1, 2017 Altmetric scores. Readership was measured by abstract and full-text views over a 3-month period. The number needed to view (NNV) was calculated by dividing abstract views by full-text views. Twenty-nine of 88 articles that met inclusion were included in the podcast (6), infographic (11), and control (12) groups. Descriptive statistics (mean, 95% confidence interval) were calculated for podcast (Altmetric: 61, 42-80; Abstract: 1795, 1135-2455; Full-text: 431, 0-1031), infographic (Altmetric: 31.5, 19-43; Abstract: 590, 361-819; Full-text: 65, 33-98), and control (Altmetric: 12, 8-15; Abstract: 257, 159-354; Full-Text: 73, 38-109) articles. The NNV was 4.2 for podcast, 9.0 for infographic, and 3.5 for control articles. Discussion Limitations included selection bias, the influence of SoMe promotion on the Altmetric scores, and a lack of generalizability to other journals. Collaboration with established SoMe websites using podcasts and infographics was associated with increased Altmetric scores and abstract views but not full-text article views.

Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic oncology literature.

70 Background: Social media use has dramatically increased in academic medicine with over 70% of journals now using twitter accounts. This calls into question if there is a measurable association between academic impact and Twitter use. We sought to quantify the relationship between the number of Twitter mentions and the number of academic citations a urologic oncology publication receives. Methods: 210 papers from 7 prominent urology journals were examined 18 months after publication from December 2014-January 2015. Articles were evaluated with 2 citation based “bibliometrics” (Scopus, Google Scholar) and 1 social media based metric (Altmetric). Altmetric software allowed for individual tweets regarding an article to be examined. Scores and Twitter mentions for oncology and non-oncology publications were compared using ANOVA and contingency analysis. Results: 79 articles were oncology related while 131 pertained to other topics. The mean number of Twitter mentions for oncology articles was 4.1, compared to 2.4 for non-oncology articles (p=0.004). Articles with at least one twitter mention had 2.0 fold more Scopus citations (p&lt;0.01), 2.1 fold more Google Scholar citations (p&lt;0.01), and 27.8 fold higher Altmetric scores (p&lt;0.001). Oncology authors tended to be more active on Twitter, with 13.9% of oncology authors self-tweeting their own articles versus 5.3% of non-oncology authors (p=0.04). Authors self-tweeting oncology articles was associated with an increased number of citations, with a 10.3 and 7.9 mean citation increase in Google Scholar and Scopus scores (p=0.04 and p=0.01) compared to non-self-tweeted oncology articles. (See table.) Conclusions: Social media appears to be more prominent in the urologic oncology community. The number of citations a urologic oncology publication receives is associated with the number of mentions it has on Twitter. Authors self-tweeting articles may be a factor that increases paper visibility and academic impact. [Table: see text]

Online metrics show who’s saying what about scientists’ research

Journal websites are now highlighting their articles’ likes, shares, and tweets, but information scientists still aren’t sure what the numbers really mean.