Traditional Bibliometrics Research Articles

The review of advanced methods and techniques for estimating research output in bibliometrics (Part 1)

The authors explore the significant changes in traditional bibliometrics, including distinctive innovations in this area. Within the five-year period (2019– 2024), two processes have had a significant impact on the methods and technologies: these are the COVID-19 pandemic period (recognition of the importance of open research outcomes) and the period of sanctions (an attempt to exclude Russia from the global scientific process).The authors review in brief the improvements of existing methods, e. g. the introduction of the system of beamplot diagrams and research-based citation analysis. The role of scientometrics in global rankings is evaluated. The focus is also made on new vectors of analysis development, such as altmetrics and artificial intelligence. The application of artificial intelligence tools not only ensures high speed but also lays the basis for the entirely new system for comparing scientific publications with the existing array of accumulated knowledge.

Bibliometric Analysis of Predictors of Altmetric Attention Scores in Orthopedic Research: Investigating Online Visibility.

Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) captures online attention received by a research article in addition to traditional bibliometrics. We present a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of high AAS articles and identify predictors of AAS in orthopedics. The top 30 articles with highest AAS were selected from orthopedic journals using the Dimensions App. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression was used to address clustering in articles from the same journal, with journals as the leveling variable. A total of 750 articles from 25 journals were included. In the final multivariable model, the funding source (none, industry, government, foundation, university, or multiple), findings (positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable), and the journal's impact factor were significant at P<.05. Predictors of AAS are similar to predictors of traditional bibliometrics. Future studies need prospective dynamic data to further elucidate the AAS. [Orthopedics. 20XX;4X(X):XXX-XXX.].

Assessing the impact of history of medicine research: A scientometric and altmetric analysis.

After conducting a comprehensive literature search of two medical electronic databases, PubMed and Embase, as well as two citation databases, Web of Science Core Collections (WoS) and Scopus, we aimed to conduct an Altmetric and Scientometric analysis of the History of Medicine literature in medical research. The following software tools were used for analyzing the retrieved records from PubMed and Embase databases and conducting a collaboration analysis to identify the countries involved in scientific medical papers, as well as clustering keywords to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. These software tools (VOSviewer 1.6.18 and Spss 16) allowed the researchers to visualize bibliometric networks, perform statistical analysis, and identify patterns and trends in the data. Our analysis revealed 53,771 records from PubMed and 54,405 records from EMBASE databases retrieved in the field of History of Medicine by 105,286 contributed authors in WoS. We identified 157 countries that collaborated on scientific medical papers. By clustering 59,995 keywords, we were able to reveal the trend of History of Medicine research for the future. Our findings showed a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics such as the Altmetric Attention Score in the History of Medicine literature (p < 0.05). Sharing research findings of articles in social scientific networks will increase the visibility of scientific works in History of Medicine research, which is one of the most important factors influencing the citation of articles. Additionally, our overview of the literature in the medical field allowed us to identify and examine gaps in the History of Medicine research.

Association Between Altmetrics and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery.

As the dissemination of scientific knowledge pervades social media, appraising impact with traditional bibliometrics led to the creation of alternative metrics, termed altmetrics. Lacking existent foot and ankle surgery literature altmetric analysis, we analyzed the 10 most-cited articles in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) and The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (JFAS) in 2013 and 2017. Citation count, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), Mendeley Reads, and professional society-affiliated Twitter ages were collected and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation coefficient identified relationships between traditional and nontraditional metrics. The 40 articles showed a high median and large range in total citations for JAPMA (13.5 [range, 5-27]) and JFAS (28 [range, 5-69]). Media AAS Mendeley Reads also showed a high median with wide range for both JAPMA (32.5 [range, 0-135]) and JFAS (25 [range, 0-113)]. No significant correlation between total citations and AAS was seen in 2013 (r = -0.205; P = .388) or 2017 (r = -0.029; P = .903). The correlation between total citation count and Mendeley reads was significant in 2017 (r = 0.646; P = .002) but not in 2013 (r = -0.078; P = .744). Although cumulative AAS increased from 2013 to 2017 by 68.75%, with Twitter contributing most to both periods, there existed no significant correlation with Twitter age and the correlation coefficient between AAS and total citations (r = 0.655; P = .173). The results of this investigation show the utility and predictivity of alternative metrics in complementing traditional bibliometrics and encourage the promotion of publications through journal-specific social media.

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

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

Promotion of a neurosurgical academic journal on social media: a 1-year experience

BackgroundSocial media (SoMe) use, in all of its forms, has seen massively increased throughout the past two decades, including academic publishing. Many journals have established a SoMe presence, yet the influence of promotion of scientific publications on their visibility and impact remains poorly studied. The European Journal of Neurosurgery «Acta Neurochirurgica» has established its SoMe presence in form of a Twitter account that regularly promotes its publications. We aim to analyze the impact of this initial SoMe campaign on various alternative metrics (altmetrics).MethodsA retrospective analysis of all articles published in the journal Acta Neurochirurgica between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2020, was performed. These articles were divided into a historical control group — containing the articles published between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2019, when the SoMe campaign was not yet established — and into an intervention group. Several altmetrics were analyzed, along with website visits and PDF downloads per month.ResultsIn total, 784 articles published during the study period, 128 (16.3%) were promoted via Twitter. During the promotion period, 29.7% of published articles were promoted. Overall, the published articles reached a mean of 31.3 ± 50.5 website visits and 17.5 ± 31.25 PDF downloads per month. Comparing the two study periods, no statistically significant differences in website visits (26.91 ± 32.87 vs. 34.90 ± 61.08, p = 0.189) and PDF downloads (17.52 ± 31.25 vs. 15.33 ± 16.07, p = 0.276) were detected. However, overall compared to non-promoted articles, promoted articles were visited (48.9 ± 95.0 vs. 29.0 ± 37.0, p = 0.005) and downloaded significantly more (25.7 ± 66.7 vs. 16.6 ± 18.0, p = 0.045) when compared to those who were not promoted during the promotion period.ConclusionsWe report a 1-year initial experience with promotion of a general neurosurgical journal on Twitter. Our data suggest a clear benefit of promotion on article site visits and article downloads, although no single responsible element could be determined in terms of altmetrics. The impact of SoMe promotion on other metrics, including traditional bibliometrics such as citations and journal impact factor, remains to be determined.

Comparing traditional bibliometrics and Altmetric assessments of research impact in respiratory disease.

Traditional bibliometric assessments of research impact do not correlate with online attention scores in asthma, COPD and COVID-19. https://bit.ly/3FbwC3O.

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

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

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

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

Twitter Buzz and Citations: Who's Tweeting Matters for Plastic Surgery Literature.

Plastic surgery and social media have become inextricably linked through patient procurement, practice growth, and academic exposure. Other surgical fields have demonstrated that tweeting is positively correlated with increased citations. This study aimed to elucidate the effect of Twitter on traditional bibliometrics in plastic surgery and parse out the kinds of tweets that are most correlated with citations. Articles from May to October of 2018 from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal were analyzed to determine the citation count, number and backgrounds of Twitter users tweeting about the article, and total tweets. Multiple linear regression was performed to correlate these variables to citation count. A total of 369 articles were analyzed. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had significantly more average tweets per article compared to Aesthetic Surgery Journal (21.8 versus 10.2, P < 0.001), Additionally, a number of tweets (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and reaching more total followers (r = 0.48, P < 0.001) were both positively correlated with citations. Multiple linear regression demonstrated that tweets from self-identified scientists were positively correlated with citations (r = 0.99, P = 0.001). Tweets from science communicators had no correlation with citations (r = -0.012, P = 0.726). Tweets coming domestically from the country of the author were also associated with more citations (r = 0.164, P = 0.013). Twitter activity, including the number of followers reached, for an article is positively correlated with citations. Interestingly, the kind of person tweeting affected the citations as well. Domestic tweets and those from scientists were associated with more citations. This implies that Twitter can be an effective form of academic dissemination, provided the "right" Twitter users are promoting the article.

Altmetric Analysis of Dermatology Manuscript Dissemination During the COVID-19 Era: Cross-Sectional Study.

Alternative bibliometrics or altmetrics, is a measure of an academic article's impact on social media outlets, which is quantified by the Altmetric Attention score (AAS). Given a lack of data for altmetric trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a comprehensive, multivariable analysis of top dermatology manuscripts published during this time period. We aim to assess (1) the relationship between traditional bibiliometrics and Altmetrics and (2) factors associated with high AAS. All abstracted articles published in the top-5 (ranked by SCImago Journal Rankings) peer-reviewed dermatology journals published in 2021 were included in our study. We collected AAS as the dependent variable and categorical predictor variables included journal title, whether a conflict of interest existed, open access status, whether the article was related to COVID-19 or skin-of-color research, and the type of research (eg, clinical, basic science, review, etc). Numerical predictor variables consisted of the impact factor of journal, total citations, and number of authors. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used. The relationship between AAS and citation number was significant by multivariable analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic (P<.001). Numerous factors, including studies related to COVID-19, whether the article was open access, title of the journal, and journal impact factor were also independently related to higher AAS (P<.002). Our results validate the use of altmetrics as a complement to traditional bibliometrics, especially in times of widespread scientific interest. Despite existing in a complex realm of bibliometrics, there are also discernable patterns associated with higher AAS. This is especially relevant in the era of growing technologic importance and utility to assess the impact of scientific works within the general public.

Correlation Between Altmetric Scores and Citation Count in 4 High-Impact Plastic Surgery Journals.

The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) aims to determine the impact of research articles throughout the internet and social media outlets. The AAS is a weighted average of the interaction on platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and more. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the AAS and traditional bibliometrics across plastic surgery journals. Articles, number of citations (NOC), and H-index information in Annals of Plastic Surgery (APS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO), and Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) from 2017, 2018, and 2019 were queried with the Scopus Online Tool. AAS metrics were collected with the Altmetric Score Calculator Bookmarklet. Descriptive statistics, Spearman rank-correlation analyses, and analyses of variance were performed to measure associations between NOC and AAS. A total of 3612 articles were analyzed. NOC was weakly correlated with AAS in APS, PRS GO, and ASJ, and moderately correlated with AAS in PRS. NOC was weakly correlated with Twitter mentions in APS, PRS GO, and ASJ, and moderately correlated in PRS. NOC was weakly correlated with news outlet reporting. The H-index of the first author showed more significant correlations with the AAS than the H-index of the last author. NOC and H-index of the first author correlated with AAS in the plastic surgery literature, suggesting AAS may be a useful adjunct to traditional bibliometrics when evaluating the impact and reach of peer-reviewed articles.

Assessment of the dissemination of COVID-19 articles across social media: An Altmetrics Study.

The use of social media assists in the distribution of information about COVID-19 to the general public and health professionals. Alternative-level metrics (Altmetrics) is an alternative method to traditional bibliometrics that assess the amount of sharing and spreading of a scientific article on social media platforms. Our objective was to characterize and compare traditional bibliometrics (citation-count) with newer metrics (Altmetric Attention Score) of the top 100 Altmetric scored COVID-19 articles. The 100 highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) articles were identified utilizing the Altmetric explorer in May 2020. AAS, journal name, and mentions from various social media databases (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Reddit, Mendeley, Dimension) of each article were collected. Citation-counts were collected from the Scopus database. The median AAS and citation-count were 4922.50 and 24.00, respectively. Of 100 articles, The New England Journal of Medicine published the most articles at 18% (18/100). Twitter was the most frequently used social media platform with 96.3% of the mentions (985,429/1,022,975). Positive correlations were seen between AAS and citation-count (r2=.0973; P=.002). Our research characterized the top 100 articles by AAS regarding COVID-19 in the Altmetric database. Altmetrics could complement with traditional citation-count when assessing the dissemination of an article regarding COVID-19. RR2-10.2196/21408.

Alive Publication

An alive publication is a new genre for presenting the results of scientific research, where the scientific work is published online, and then is constantly being developed and improved by its author. Serious errors and typos are no longer fatal, nor do they haunt the author for the rest of his or her life. The reader of an alive publication knows that the author is constantly monitoring changes occurring in this branch of science. Alive publication faces the inertia of scientific publishing traditions and, in particular, traditional bibliometrics. Unfortunately, at present, the author who supports an alive publication is dramatically losing out on many generally accepted bibliometric indicators. The alive publication encourages the development of the bibliography apparatus. Each bibliographic reference will soon have to contain on-the-fly attributes such as attendance, number of external links, date of the last revision, etc. In the opinion of the writer of these lines, as the alive publication spreads over to the scientific world, the author’s concern for the publication’s evolution will become like a parent’s care for the development of a child. The Internet will be filled with scientific publications that do not lose their relevance with time.

The Correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Top Nursing Journal Articles

Background. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of the online impact of research and has a potential correlation with traditional bibliometrics. However, the correlation for nursing journal articles is still unknown. The objective of the study was to analyze the correlation between AAS and traditional bibliometrics in the top nursing journal articles. Materials and Methods. Articles published in top nursing journals (the journals with the top 20 5-year impact factors) from 2010 to 2019 were included. The correlations between AAS and citations, AAS and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) score, AAS and Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) value, and AAS and impact factors were analyzed. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 25.0 software. Results. A total of 15,212 journal articles were included in the study. Very weak correlations were found between AASs and citations [0.124 (95% CI, 0.108–0.14)], AASs and RCRs [0.26 (95% CI, 0.244–0.275)], and AASs and CNCIs [0.207 (95% CI, 0.192–0.223)]. The weak correlations were also found between AASs and impact factors in several journals. The weak correlations between AASs and citations, AASs and CNCIs, and AASs and RCRs were also found for most journals based on subgroup analysis. Conclusions. There is very weak correlations between AASs and traditional bibliometrics in top nursing journal articles. More studies should be conducted to assess how AAS influence bibliometrics, and how they can help manage nursing journal articles and research.

The Relative Citation Ratio: Evaluating a New Measure of Scientific Influence Among Academic Sports Medicine Surgeons.

Objective measures of research influence are being increasingly utilized to evaluate and compare academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are biased by time-dependent factors and are limited by a lack of field normalization. The relative citation ratio (RCR) is a new field- and time-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the RCR among fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgeons and to analyze physician factors associated with RCR values. We hypothesized that the mean RCR score for fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty will fall above the NIH standard. Cross-sectional study. A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic surgery residency programs in December 2021. In eligible faculty, the mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A mean RCR value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The data herein are presented as the median and interquartile range, in addition to the mean and standard deviation, to account for outliers of the mean and weighted RCR scores. A total of 624 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgery faculty members from 160 orthopaedic surgery residency programs were included in the analysis. Overall, faculty produced impactful research, with a median RCR of 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.0-2.2) and a median weighted RCR of 19.3 (interquartile range, 5.1-69.3). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value >1.0. Study findings indicate that fellowship-trained academic sports medicine surgery faculty are highly productive and produce impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0.

Social Media Impact of Articles Published by Dermatology Residents During Medical School: Cross-sectional Study.

The Altmetric score (AS) is a novel measure of publication impact that is calculated by the number of mentions across various social media websites. This method may have advantages over traditional bibliometrics in the context of research by medical students. This study aimed to determine whether dermatology matriculants who graduated from higher-ranked medical schools published more articles with greater impact (ie, a higher AS) than those from lower-ranked institutions. A PubMed search for articles published by dermatology residents who started medical school in 2020 was conducted. Demographic information and Altmetric data were collected, and medical schools were sorted according to US News' top-25 and non-top-25 categories. Residents who completed their medical training at a top-25 institution published more papers (mean 4.93, SD 4.18 vs mean 3.11, SD 3.32; P<.001) and accrued a significantly higher total AS (mean 67.9, SD 160 vs mean 22.9, SD 75.9; P<.001) and average AS (mean 13.1, SD 23.7 vs mean 6.71, SD 32.3; P<.001) per article than those who graduated from non-top-25 schools. Our results indicate that students in top-25 schools may have greater access to research resources and opportunities. With a pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam that may increasingly shift focus toward scholarly output from medical students, further discussion on how to create a more equitable dermatology match is essential.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health-supported relative citation ratio among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons fellowship faculty: a new bibliometric measure of scientific influence.

Publication metrics are used to evaluate and compare research productivity among academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index and article citation count, are limited by lack of field-normalization and yield inaccurate cross-specialty comparisons. Herein, we evaluate the use of a new field-normalized article-level metric developed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), known as the relative citation ratio (RCR), among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) fellowship faculty and analyzed physician factors associated with RCR values. A retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all shoulder and elbow surgery fellowship faculty listed on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) directory as of November 14, 2021. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. Mean RCR represents the total number of article citations per year of a publication divided by the average number of citations per year received by NIH-funded papers in the same field; mean RCR serves as a measure of overall research impact. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. The weighted RCR represents the sum of all article-level RCR scores and is a measure of overall research productivity. Student t tests were used for two-group analyses whereas analyses of variance were used for between-group comparisons of 3 or more subgroups. A total of 145 ASES fellowship faculty members from 33 fellowship programs were included in the analysis. Overall, ASES fellowship faculty produced highly impactful research with a median RCR of 1.8 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.4-2.3) and a median weighted RCR of 67.0 (IQR 21.1-212.7). Advanced academic rank and career longevity were associated with increased weighted RCR and total publication count. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. ASES fellowship faculty are exceptionally productive and produce highly impactful research, as evidenced by the high median RCR value relative to the benchmark NIH RCR value of 1.0. This information can be used as a standard to assess the improvement of grant outcomes, promotion, fellowship education, and continued evaluation of research productivity in the shoulder and elbow community.

Evaluation of the National Institutes of Health–supported relative citation ratio among American orthopedic spine surgery faculty: A new bibliometric measure of scientific influence

BackgroundPublication metrics have been traditionally used to compare research productivity amongst academic faculty. However, traditional bibliometrics lack field-normalization and are often biased towards time-dependent publication factors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed a new, field-normalized, article-level metric, known as the “relative citation ratio” (RCR), that can be used to make accurate self, departmental, and cross-specialty comparisons of research productivity. This study evaluates the use of the RCR amongst academic orthopedic spine surgery faculty and analyzes physician factors associated with RCR values. MethodsA retrospective data analysis was performed using the iCite database for all fellowship trained orthopedic spine surgery (OSS) faculty associated with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopedic surgery residency program. Mean RCR, weighted RCR, and total publication count were compared by sex, career duration, academic rank, and presence of additional degrees. A value of 1.0 is the NIH-funded field-normalized standard. Student t-tests were used for two-group analyses whereas the analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) was used for between-group comparisons of three or more subgroups. Statistical significance was achieved at P < 0.05. ResultsA total of 502 academic OSS faculty members from 159 institutions were included in the analysis. Overall, OSS faculty were highly productive, with a median RCR of 1.62 (IQR 1.38-2.32) and a median weighted RCR of 68.98 (IQR 21.06-212.70). Advancing academic rank was associated with weighted RCR, career longevity was associated with mean RCR score, and male sex was associated with having increased mean and weighted RCR scores. All subgroups analyzed had an RCR value above 1.0. ConclusionsAcademic orthopedic spine surgery faculty produce impactful research as evidenced by the high median RCR relative to the standard value set by the NIH of 1.0. Our data can be used to evaluate research productivity in the orthopedic spine community.

Comparing online engagement and academic impact of lung cancer research: An altmetric attention score and PlumX analysis.

11044 Background: Social media has proven vital in the rapid dissemination of literature to medical professionals and the public. In recent years, seminal research articles have yielded breakthrough therapies for lung cancer, including targeted drugs and unique immunotherapy-based combinations. New metrics such as the Altmetric Attention score (AAS) and PlumX Impact score capture interactions through social media and other public forums and serve as swifter counterparts to citations, which can take years to accrue. In this study, we characterize and compare AAS, PlumX and traditional bibliometrics (citation count, impact factor [IF]) of the top 100 trending articles on lung cancer. Methods: The 100 articles with the highest AAS featuring the keywords “lung cancer” between 01/2019 and 12/2021 were identified via Altmetric explorer. AAS, open access status, article type, topic, year and continent of publication were collected. PlumX and citation count were identified via Scopus database. Analysis included Spearman correlation coefficients and ANOVA. Results: A majority of the 100 articles were original investigations, of which 40% were RCTs, 22% retrospective cohort, 14% prospective, 9% basic science, 8% cross-sectional and 6% genome-wide association studies. Most articles focused on NSCLC (59%) and were conducted in North America (44%); 13% were in Europe, 36% multi-continental and the remainder &lt; 5% each. PlumX positively correlated with both citation count (p &lt;.001, r =.765) and IF (p &lt;.001, r =.581). AAS did not correlate with citation or IF. Articles on guidelines (p &lt;.001) and screening (p &lt;.001) were associated with higher AAS in comparison to other article types and topics, respectively. Basic science articles were associated with a higher PlumX (p &lt;.001) in comparison to others article topics. Year and continent of publication did not impact PlumX or AAS. Open access status did not correlate with PlumX or AAS. Conclusions: In our study, PlumX scores strongly correlated with citations and IF for recently published articles on lung cancer; this mirrors trends in other specialties. PlumX may be predictive in terms of academic impact, making it valuable to the research community. Though AAS did not correlate with traditional bibliometrics, its association with guidelines and screening articles suggests AAS may reflect interactions amongst a broader community (oncologic and non-oncologic clinicians). With the growing use of social media, the continued exploration of alternative metrics will play a role in understanding readership and fields of interest in lung cancer and in anticipating academic impact.[Table: see text]