Traditional Citation-based Metrics Research Articles

Social media for cardiac imagers: a review.

Cardiac imaging plays a pivotal role in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases. In the burgeoning landscape of digital technology and social media platforms, it becomes essential for cardiac imagers to know how to effectively increase the visibility and the impact of their activity. With the availability of social sites like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and Facebook, cardiac imagers can now reach a wider audience and engage with peers, sharing their findings, insights, and discussions. The integration of persistent identifiers, such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), facilitates traceability and citation of cardiac imaging publications across various digital platforms, further enhancing their discoverability. To maximize visibility, practical advice is provided, including the use of visually engaging infographics and videos, as well as the strategic implementation of relevant hashtags and keywords. These techniques can significantly improve the discoverability of cardiac imaging research through search engine optimization and social media algorithms. Tracking impact and engagement is crucial in the digital age, and this review discusses various metrics and tools to gauge the reach and influence of cardiac imaging publications. This includes traditional citation-based metrics and altmetrics. Moreover, this review underscores the importance of creating and updating professional profiles on social platforms and participating in relevant scientific communities online. The adoption of digital technology, social platforms, and a strategic approach to publication sharing can empower cardiac imaging professionals to enhance the visibility and impact of their research, ultimately advancing the field and improving patient care.

The Top 100 Most Impactful Articles on the Achilles Tendon According to Altmetric Attention Score and Number of Citations.

Achilles tendon injuries often generate substantial discussion in the mainstream media. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) measures the online dialogue pertaining to Achilles tendon research that occurs outside scientific journals, which traditional citation-based metrics fail to capture. To characterize the top 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles and compare them with the 100 Achilles tendon articles with the highest AAS. A secondary goal was to gain an improved understanding of the online dissemination and interpretation of Achilles tendon research through this comparison. Cross-sectional study. The Web of Science Clarivate database was queried to isolate the 100 most-cited Achilles tendon articles, and the Altmetric database was queried to identify the Achilles tendon articles with the top 100 AAS values. Data elements were extracted for each article including study type, study topic, and geographic origin. The Web of Science Clarivate database search yielded 10,890 articles published between 1970 and 2021. The 100 most-cited articles were published in 35 journals, with the American Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The mean (±SD) number of citations was 214.5 ± 86.47. The most prevalent study type was laboratory (28.0%). The most prevalent study topic was treatment (41.0%). Of these articles, 72.0% were European. The Altmetric database search yielded 3810 articles published between 1957 and 2021. The AAS of the top 100 articles ranged from 37 to 476 with a mean of 98.17 ± 85.53. The selected articles were published in 39 journals, with the British Journal of Sports Medicine being the most prevalent. The most prevalent study type was randomized controlled trial (25.0%). The most common study topic was treatment (40.0%). Of these articles, 46.0% were European. Our findings suggest that, although the scientific community remains committed to high-impact journals with articles backed by high citation numbers, there is an increasing opportunity to consume Achilles tendon literature through social media.

Identification and Portraits of Open Access Journals Based on Open Impact Metrics Extracted from Social Activities

This article focuses on open impact metrics extracted from social media activities that demonstrate the identification and portraits of open access journals based on these alternative forms of open impact metrics. The research sample consists of open access journals from Scopus, with open impact metrics retrieved from Altmetric.com . The open impact metrics extracted from social activities established that an evaluation system based on altmetrics can better reflect the portraits of open access journals than traditional citation-based metrics. This study finds that open access journals strengthen international academic communication and cooperation, build cross-border and cross-regional knowledge-sharing projects, realize the knowledge of interdisciplinary sharing and exchange, and, most importantly, provide a one-stop service for readers. This research indicates that through the use of open impact metrics, it is possible to identify the portraits of open access journals, thus providing a new method to construct and reform open access journal evaluation systems.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Upper Extremity Lymphedema Complications: Altmetric Analysis of Online Media.

Background:Traditional citation-based metrics do not capture the dissemination of upper extremity lymphedema (UEL) research that occurs online and in mainstream media. There is limited literature reporting the most impactful UEL articles based on citation rate and/or online mentions. We sought to use the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) to determine the most impactful UEL articles in online media and to report trends in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of complications.Methods:The Altmetric database was queried to identify all published articles regarding the management, diagnosis, and prevention of complications seen in the setting of UEL. Extracted data points included article topic and type, journal, and number of online mentions on several platforms.Results:Our index search yielded 638 studies published between 2000 and 2021. Fifty articles with the highest AAS scores were included for analysis. The median AAS was 27.5, but the top four articles had AAS scores that were substantially higher (AAS ≥ 334) than all other studies. Of the top 50 articles, 68% (34/50) were original research. Of those, 23.5% (8/34) were randomized control trials. The most common article topic was the treatment of UEL (36%; 18/50) followed by diagnostic methods of UEL (30%; 15/50). There were a total of 1156 Twitter mentions (median:14) for the top 50 articles. Of all media platforms, news mentions correlated most strongly with AAS (R2 = 0.99, P < 0.001).Conclusions:Our findings suggest that alternative metrics measure distinct components of article impact and add an important dimension to understanding the overall impact of published research on UEL.

The Top 100 Most Impactful Articles on the Achilles Tendon: An Altmetric Analysis of Online Media

Category:Ankle; Hindfoot; SportsIntroduction/Purpose:Achilles tendon injuries affect a wide range of individuals, including both recreational and competitive athletes. In the elite athlete population, Achilles tendon ruptures are typically season-ending injuries and can be career-threatening. Due to these impacts on individual players' careers as well as team success, Achilles tendon injuries often generate substantial discussion in the mainstream media and among the general public. However, traditional citation-based metrics fail to capture the dissemination of Achilles research that occurs outside the realm of scientific journal publications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to use the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) to identify the 100 most impactful articles in online media pertaining to the Achilles tendon and assess their characteristics.Methods:The Altmetric database (Digital Science, Holtzbrinck Publishing) was queried to identify all published articles pertaining to the Achilles Tendon. The articles were stratified by highest to lowest AAS and the top 100 articles with the highest scores were included for analysis. Several data elements were extracted for each article: title, article type, article topic, year of publication, journal name, authors, institutional affiliations, and online mentions (i.e., the number of times the article was mentioned in news, blog, Twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia sources). The geographic origin of each article was also determined by the institutional affiliation of the first author, which was categorized as American (originating in the United States), European (originating in Europe), or Other. Linear regression was used to determine the relationship between online mentions and AAS.Results:The initial search yielded 3,810 articles published between 1957 and 2021. AAS of the top 100 articles ranged from 37 to 476 with a median of 65 (interquartile range: 42-110). The selected articles were published in 39 journals. The most prevalent article type was randomized controlled trial (21.8%), followed by systematic review / meta-analysis (13.9%). The most prevalent article topics were treatment (39.6%), rehabilitation and return to play (11.9%), epidemiology (11.9%), and biomechanics (11.9%). Of the top 100 articles, 25.0% were American, 45.0% were European, and 30.0% were published outside of the United States or Europe. AAS had a strong correlation to Twitter mentions (r = 0.81), a moderate correlation to Google Scholar mentions (r = 0.52), and a weak correlation to Facebook mentions (r = 0.49).Conclusion:This study used AAS to characterize the 100 most impactful Achilles articles in online media. As access to research continues to move away from the conventional printed format, it is critically important to understand how orthopaedic information is disseminated online. Our findings suggest that alternative metrics broaden the definition of article impact beyond what is provided by traditional citation-based metrics and should be considered as a supplemental means of assessing the overall impact of published scientific literature.

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.

BackgroundAcademics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.ResultsOf a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.ConclusionsWe have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions

The Nature Index (NI) has become a rather powerful tool to identify emerging trends in various research fields. According to the NI 2015 released at the beginning of 2016, China, the world’s second largest producer of research papers, maintains a strong momentum on scientific output. Based on online source metrics such as Mendeley bookmarks, we evaluated multi-viewed impact of the top 50 academic institutions in the NI China. For the selection of multiple metrics, we investigated the presence and coverage of different kinds of online metrics, with a particular focus on their correlations with traditional citation-based metrics. In addition, Mendeley, Twitter, and Scopus are chosen as the complementary sources for multi-metrics. We sorted three ranks of the top 50 institutions in the NI China based on citation counts in Scopus, reader counts on Mendeley, and Twitter counts and we analyzed the differences among various ranking results. The diverse metrics revealed different aspects on institutions’ academic impact.

Beyond Citation Rates: A Real-Time Impact Analysis of Health Professions Education Research Using Altmetrics.

To complement traditional citation-based metrics, which take years to accrue and indicate only academic attention, academia has begun considering altmetrics or alternative metrics, which provide timely feedback on an article's impact by tracking its dissemination via nontraditional outlets, such as blogs and social media, across audiences. This article describes altmetrics and examines altmetrics attention, outlets used, and top article characteristics for health professions education (HPE) research. Using Altmetric Explorer, a tool to search altmetrics activity, the authors searched for HPE articles that had at least one altmetrics event (e.g., an article was tweeted or featured in a news story) between 2011 and 2015. Retrieved articles were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In addition, the 10 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores were identified and their key characteristics extracted. The authors analyzed 6,265 articles with at least one altmetrics event from 13 journals. Articles appeared in 14 altmetrics outlets. Mendeley (161,470 saves), Twitter (37,537 tweets), and Facebook (1,650 posts) were most popular. The number of HPE articles with altmetrics attention increased 145%, from 539 published in 2011 to 1,321 in 2015. In 2015, 50% or more of the articles in 5 journals received altmetrics attention. Themes for articles with the most altmetrics attention included social media or social networking; three such articles were written as tips or guides. Increasing altmetrics attention signals interest in HPE research and the need for further investigation. Knowledge of popular and underused outlets may help investigators strategically share research for broader dissemination.

Top Altmetric Scores in the Parkinson's Disease Literature.

A new class of social web-based metrics for scholarly publications (altmetrics) has surfaced as a complement to traditional citation-based metrics. Our aim was to study and characterize those recent papers in the field of Parkinson’s disease which had received the highest Altmetric Attention Scores and to compare this attention measure to the traditional metrics. The top 20 papers in our analysis covered a variety of topics, mainly new disease mechanisms, treatment options and risk factors for the development of PD. The main media sources for these high attention papers were news items and Twitter. The papers were published predominantly in high impact journals, suggesting a correlation between altmetrics and conventional metrics. One paper published in a relatively modest journal received a significant amount of attention, reflecting that public attention does not always parallel the traditional metrics. None of the most influential papers in PD, as reviewed by Ponce and Lozano (2011) made it to our list, suggesting that recent publications receive higher attention scores, and that altmetrics may omit older, seminal work in the field.

The Altmetric Score: A New Measure for Article-Level Dissemination and Impact

HOW SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS WORK/SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION The Altmetric Score: A New Measure for Article-Level Dissemination and Impact N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH*; Brent Thoma, MD, MA; Cindy H. Hsu, MD, PhD; Daniel Sullivan, MDiv; Lindsay Peters, BA; Michelle Lin, MD *Corresponding Author. E-mail: ntrueger@gmail.com, Twitter: @MDaware. 0196-0644/$-see front matter Copyright © 2015 by the American College of Emergency Physicians. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.04.022 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The explosion of scientific literature in recent years 1 makes it increasingly important and difficult for clinicians to identify high-quality articles relevant to their practice, research, education, and advocacy efforts. Theoretically, prestigious journals are read widely because of the high impact of their articles on medical practice; journal prestige has traditionally been quantified with the journal impact factor. Initially described by Garfield 2,3 and now published annually by Thomson Reuters, 4 journal impact factor uses citations in other scientific journals to quantify the influence of an original research journal as a whole, calculating the ratio of citations of previous 2 years’ articles during the current year to the total number of citable articles published in that journal during those previous 2 years (Figure 1A and B). 4 Journal impact factor posits that the impact of a journal is the weighted sum of the citations, and therefore the impact, of its articles. Authors’ work has increasingly been assessed by the impact of the journal it is published in for the purposes of university promotions, general esteem among colleagues, 5 and hiring and funding decisions. 6,7 Despite its popularity, journal impact factor is widely criticized. 8 Detractors note that it is inherently slow (citations take months to years to accrue, and journal impact factor is published annually according to 1- to 3-year-old data 9 ), narrow (it assesses only this one particular type of impact 10 during a brief 2-year period 11 ), secretive and irreproducible (articles are weighted according to an opaque and subjective classification such as primary, review, or “front matter,” classifications that are subject to lobbying by publishers 11 ), and open to gaming (some types of articles are cited much more frequently than others 10,11 ), and fails to identify influential articles published in minor journals. Other journal-level metrics have been created but fail to address these issues, 12,13 and the h-index was developed in Volume no. 2005 to measure the impact of authors rather than journals. It combines an individual’s productivity (number of articles) and impact (number of citations) to quantify their contributions. 14 However, it also has drawbacks: it is slow, can be manipulated (eg, self-citation), does not adjust for the number or role of coauthors (particularly because coauthorship has increased significantly 15 ), and poorly recognizes early-career authors or those with small numbers of articles with high impact. 16 ALTMETRICS: ARTICLE-LEVEL METRICS Contrary to citation-based metrics like the journal impact factor and h-index, altmetrics (short for “alternative metrics” or “article-level metrics”) promptly measure the impact of an individual article’s dissemination. 17 The widespread adoption of electronic publishing, paired with the rise of social media for dissemination and discussion of scientific literature, makes it feasible to quantify the discussion of an article on blogs, podcasts, social media platforms, and news media. These measures aim to address many of the failings of traditional impact metrics; they are available nearly instantaneously, measure the dissemination of individual articles, and may more accurately assess total overall readership by incorporating more metrics—primarily measures of social media—rather than simply citations in traditional journals. As a result, highly disseminated articles may be identified within days of their publication. 18-21 Although altmetrics have certain advantages over citation-based metrics such as the journal impact factor and h-index, the type of impact that they measure, although related, is not the same. We propose that altmetrics be thought of as measures of “disseminative impact,” whereas traditional citation-based metrics be considered measures of “scholarly impact.” Altmetrics provide a proxy of a specific article’s overall readership, and articles capable of generating “buzz” are likely to score more highly. 19,20 The journal impact factor and h-index are derived from citations and are likely to link more strongly with the importance of Annals of Emergency Medicine 1