Measuring the impact of scientific publications and publication extenders: examples of novel approaches.

Different stakeholders, such as authors, research institutions, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may determine the impact of peer-reviewed publications in different ways. Commonly-used measures of research impact, such as the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not designed to evaluate the impact of individual articles. They are heavily dependent on citations, and therefore only measure impact of the overall journal or researcher respectively, taking months or years to accrue. The past decade has seen the development of article-level metrics (ALMs), that measure the online attention received by an individual publication in contexts including social media platforms, news media, citation activity, and policy and patent citations. These new tools can complement traditional bibliometric data and provide a more holistic evaluation of the impact of a publication. This commentary discusses the need for ALMs, and summarizes several examples - PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. We also discuss how metrics may be used to evaluate the value of "publication extenders" - educational microcontent such as animations, videos and plain-language summaries that are often hosted on HCP education platforms. Publication extenders adapt a publication's key data to audience needs and thereby extend a publication's reach. These new approaches have the potential to address the limitations of traditional metrics, but the diversity of new metrics requires that users have a keen understanding of which forms of impact are relevant to a specific publication and select and monitor ALMs accordingly.

Different readers have different ways of deciding how important scientific articles are. The usual methods used to measure the impact of research, like the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not meant to measure this for individual articles. These methods mainly look at how many times the articles are mentioned by others, and it can take a long time to see the impact.But in the past ten years, new tools called article-level metrics (ALMs) have been created. These tools measure how much attention an article gets online, like on social media, in the news, or when other researchers talk about it. ALMs are better at explaining how important a specific article is. They can work together with the usual methods to measure impact.This paper talks about why ALMs are important and gives examples of these tools, like PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. It also explains how these tools can help us see the value of animations, videos, or summaries in simple language. These make it easier for more people to understand and learn from the articles.These new ways of measuring impact can help us see how important articles are in a more complete way. But because there are many different ways to measure this, it's important for users to understand which methods are relevant for a specific article and keep track of them.

The sunshine act and medical publications: Guidance from professional medical associations.

OBJECTIVE: To review guidance from professional medical associations to physicians on the Sunshine Act, with a focus on industry support for medical publications. METHODS: Using 'Sunshine Act' as a search term, we searched PubMed (dates February 2013 to November 2014) and the 'grey literature' using Google and Google Scholar. Online information was extracted from websites of pre-identified professional medical associations. RESULTS: Some professional medical associations have published peer-reviewed recommendations, position statements or general advice on their websites and in journals around the Sunshine Act. Associations also provided broad online educational resources for physicians. There was universal agreement between peer-reviewed publications, including guidelines, for the need for full transparency and disclosure of industry support. Surveys by some professional associations showed variance in opinion on the forecasted impact of the Sunshine Act on physician-industry relationships. There was scarce information specifically related to reporting requirements for industry-supported medical publications. CONCLUSIONS: There is a shortage of information for physicians from professional associations regarding the Sunshine Act and support for medical publications. Due to the lack of clear guidance regarding support for publications, there are presently varying interpretations of the Sunshine Act. The literature debates the potential impact of the Sunshine Act and expresses some concerns that physician-enabled innovation in drug development may be hindered.

Proceedings from the 9th Annual Meeting of International Society for Medical Publication Professionals Roundtable Session: key insights.

INTRODUCTION: During the 9th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP, April 29-May 1, 2013 in Baltimore, MD), ∼650 participants attended two of 13 available roundtable sessions. Participants included medical publication professionals from industry, communication agencies, and journals. DISCUSSION TOPICS: Roundtable participants discussed how to best interpret and implement various guidances, such as Good Publication Practices 2 (GPP2), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, and the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. The impact of and compliance with Corporate Integrity agreements (CIAs) on medical publication planning practices was debated. Roundtable participants also discussed ways of advancing both advocacy for the medical publication professional field and internal and external collaborations. The development of review manuscripts, publications from regions newly emerging in publication planning, medical devices publications, and real-world experience publications were discussed. Participants also considered the benefits and uncertainties of new technologies in medical publications such as multimedia and social media. SUMMARY: This is the first ever article to be published following the well-attended ISMPP roundtable sessions. The objective of this manuscript is to summarize key learnings that will aid continued discussions about challenges and opportunities facing medical publication professionals.