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

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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 impact of a dedicated social media strategy on enhancing surgical education.

PURPOSE: Social media (SoMe) is increasingly important in surgical education and may be necessary in the current learning environment. Whilst expanding in use and applications, few studies detail the impact of SoMe on measurable outcomes. The goal of this study was to quantify the impact of a dedicated SoMe strategy on engagement metrics for surgical research. METHODS: A retrospective review of a peer-reviewed surgical journal's Twitter microblog platform (@ColorectalDis) was performed from 6/2015 to 4/2021. A formal SoMe strategy was introduced in September 2018. Data were stratified into 2 time periods: pre-intervention (6-2015 to 9-2018) and post-SoMe intervention (9-2018 to 4-2021). The main outcome was the impact of the SoMe strategy on user engagement with the Twitter platform, journal, and traditional journal metrics. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy were used to analyse engagement. RESULTS: From conception to analysis, the microblog published 1198 original tweets, generating 5 million impressions and 231,000 engagements. Increased account activity (increased tweets published per month-5.51 vs 28.79; p < 0.01) was associated with significant engagement growth, including new monthly followers (213 vs 38; p < 0.01) and interactions with posted articles (4,096,167 vs 269,152; p < 0.01). Article downloads increased twenty-fold post-SoMe intervention (210,449 vs 10,934; p < 0.01), with significant increases in traditional journal metrics of new subscribers (+11%), article submissions (+24%), and impact factor (+0.9) (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: SoMe directly impacts traditional journal metrics in surgical research. By examining the patterns of user engagement between SoMe and journal sites, the growing beneficial impact of a structured social media strategy and SoMe as an educational tool is demonstrated.

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

BACKGROUND: Social 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 Neurochirurgica¼ 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). METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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.

Global COVID-19 Policy Engagement With Scientific Research Information: Altmetric Data Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on COVID-19 scholarly articles have primarily focused on bibliometric characteristics, neglecting the identification of institutional actors that cite recent scientific contributions related to COVID-19 in the policy domain, and their locations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the online citation network and knowledge structure of COVID-19 research across policy domains over 2 years from January 2020 to January 2022, with a particular emphasis on geographical frequency. Two research questions were addressed. The first question was related to who has been the most active in policy engagement with science and research information sharing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in terms of countries and organization types. The second question was related to whether there are significant differences in the types of coronavirus research shared among countries and continents. METHODS: The Altmetric database was used to collect policy report citations of scientific articles for 3 topic terms (COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variants). Altmetric provides the URLs of policy agencies that have cited COVID-19 research. The scientific articles used for Altmetric citations are extracted from journals indexed by PubMed. The numbers of COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 variant research outputs between January 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022, were 216,787, 16,748, and 2777, respectively. The study examined the frequency of citations based on policy institutional domains, such as intergovernmental organizations, national and domestic governmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (think tanks and academic institutions). RESULTS: The World Health Organization (WHO) stood out as the most notable institution citing COVID-19-related research outputs. The WHO actively sought and disseminated information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 vaccine citation network exhibited the most extensive connections in terms of degree centrality, 2-local eigenvector centrality, and eigenvector centrality among the 3 key terms. The Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the countries that sought and shared the most information on COVID-19 vaccines, likely due to their high numbers of COVID-19 cases. Developing nations, although gaining quicker access to COVID-19 vaccine information, appeared to be relatively isolated from the enriched COVID-19 pandemic content in the global network. CONCLUSIONS: The global scientific network ecology during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed distinct types of links primarily centered around the WHO. Western countries demonstrated effective networking practices in constructing these networks. The prominent position of the key term "COVID-19 vaccine" demonstrates that nation-states align with global authority regardless of their national contexts. In summary, the citation networking practices of policy agencies have the potential to uncover the global knowledge distribution structure as a proxy for the networking strategy employed during a pandemic.

Twitter promotion is associated with higher citation rates of cardiovascular articles: the ESC Journals Randomized Study.

The association between the dissemination of scientific articles on Twitter and online visibility (as assessed by the Altmetric Score) is still controversial, and the impact on citation rates has never been rigorously addressed for cardiovascular medicine journals using a randomized design. The ESC Journals Study randomized 695 papers published in the ESC Journal Family (March 2018-May 2019) for promotion on Twitter or to a control arm (with no active tweeting from ESC channels) and aimed to assess whether Twitter promotion was associated with an increase in citation rates (primary endpoint) and of the Altmetric Score. This is the final analysis including 694 articles (one paper excluded due to retraction). After a median follow-up of 994 days (interquartile range: 936-1063 days), Twitter promotion of articles was associated with a 1.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.15) higher rate of citations, and this effect was independent of the type of article. Altmetric Attention Score and number of users tweeting were positive predictors for the number of citations. A social media strategy of Twitter promotion for cardiovascular medicine papers seems to be associated with increased online visibility and higher numbers of citations.

Shaping Social Media: Is Twitter an Equitable tool for Professional Development?

PURPOSE: Twitter has become a powerful tool for professional development in academia. However, studies from the general population suggest that racialized and gender biases disproportionately empower male and white users. We characterized the demographics of Twitter influencers in Canadian healthcare. METHODS: We used the Right Relevance Insight API algorithm to identify Twitter influencers in the healthcare, healthcare research, and health policy domains, and to generated normalized influencer scores based on user connections and engagement. We used facial recognition software to approximate the influencers' race and sex. RESULTS: The majority of influencers identified were white (84%) and/or male (60%). Males had significantly higher influencer scores than females (65.1 ± 8.0 vs. 61.2 ± 6.2, P < 0.05) in health policy. We did not identify any sex- or race-associated disparities among influencers in healthcare or healthcare research. CONCLUSION: Male users have significantly higher levels of influence in health policy on Twitter. Given the importance of Twitter as a tool for professional development, it is crucial that institutional leaders and policymakers are aware of potential inequities in user reach. Future studies should evaluate additional factors shaping user influence in healthcare on Twitter, with a focus on equity, diversity, and trustworthiness.

Top 50 most-cited articles on SMILE surgery between 2010 and 2022: a correlation comparison between conventional bibliometrics and current altmetrics of research impact.

PURPOSE: To conduct a bibliometric and altmetric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles on small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery and assess its correlations with other metrics. METHODS: The terms "small incision lenticule extraction" or "SMILE" were searched in the title, abstract, and keywords using Web of Science database. The retrieved articles (n = 927, between 2010 and 2022) were analyzed in-depth using altmetric attention scores (AAS), and traditional metrics (citation numbers of articles, impact factor of journals, and other citation-based metrics). A correlation statistics was performed with metrics. The articles' focus was examined quantitatively and the most prolific parameters were identified. Authorship network and country statistics also was examined. RESULTS: Citation numbers were between 491 and 45. AASs were between 26 and 0. The altmetric score correlated moderately with citation number (r = 0.44, P = 0.001) and annual mean citations (r = 0.49, P < 0.001), but correlated weakly with impact factor (r = 0.28, P = 0.045), and immediacy index (r = 0.32, P = 0.022). The most articles published from China and the most articles were published in 2014. Modern SMILE surgery was mostly compared to the older LASIK procedure. The highest authorship number of links belonged to Zhou XT. CONCLUSION: The first bibliometric and altmetric analysis of SMILE research provides novel directions for future work by showing the current research trends, prolific parameters, and zones with potential for the public's attention, providing useful information about the dissemination of scientific knowledge on SMILE in social media and to the general public.

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ALTMETRIC, PLUMX METRICS AND CITATION COUNT OF PUBLICATIONS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY AMONG TOP CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY JOURNALS.

BACKGROUND: Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and PlumX Metrics are becoming important to evaluate the impact of the publication in addition to classical scientific rating method such as citation count and impact factor. These metrics collect data about publications' tweet count, Facebook interaction count and other social interactions. In this study, it is aimed to examine the association between AAS, PlumX Metrics and citation count of top child and adolescent psychiatry. METHODS: We identified the five journals and retrospectively analysed the publications published in 2019. All the original research articles, met analysis, and reviews were analysed. The articles were divided into two groups as original articles/research articles and meta-analysis/systematic review. We have hypothesized that there could be a positive correlation between AAS and PlumX Metrics data and citation count among these journals and there could be a difference between AAS, PlumX scores and citation count between original articles/research articles and meta-analysis/systematic review as their reading potential is different. RESULTS: We have found a significant positive correlation between citation count, AAS and PlumX Metrics. This association continued after controlling the journal impact factor. In linear regression analysis, type of publication, total count of tweets, and Mendeley reads predicted the citation count. CONCLUSION: In addition to the classical methods measuring the quality of the articles such as the total citation count and impact factor, the importance of AAS and PlumX Metrics has been increasing. It is important to share scientific publications on these platforms in order to increase the impact of the articles.

Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal.

Background Although the Hirsch index (H-index) has become one of the most accepted measures of scholarly output, its limitations have led to the proposition of newer alternative metrics. The i10-index, notable for being easy to calculate and free to access, has potential, given its association with the power and ubiquity of Google. This study aims to evaluate the utility of the i10-index for plastic surgery research by examining its relationship with author bibliometrics and article metrics, including the H-index and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods Article metrics were extracted from articles published in the highest impact plastic surgery journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, over a 2-year period (2017-2019). Senior author bibliometrics, including i10-index and H5-index, were obtained from Web of Science. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r s ). Results A total of 1,668 articles were published and 971 included. Senior author i10-index measurements demonstrated moderate correlation with times emailed (r s = 0.47), and weak correlations with H5-index, total publications, and sum of times cited with and without self-citations. The H5-index correlated very strongly with total publications (r s = 0.91) and sum of times cited (both r s = 0.97), moderately with average citations per item (r s = 0.66) and times emailed (r s = 0.41), and weakly with number of citations by posts, AAS, and times tweeted. Conclusions Although the i10 strongly correlates with the H5-index, it fails to prove superior to the H5-index in predicting the impact of specific research studies in the field of plastic surgery.

Predictors of societal and professional impact of Endodontology research articles: A multivariate scientometric analysis.

AIM: To identify factors that are predictive of short-term professional and societal impact of research within the specialty of Endodontology and to identify the top-10 articles that achieved the greatest societal impact and describe their characteristics. METHODOLOGY: Research articles in the field of Endodontology published in 2019 were eligible for inclusion, with the sample identified using Medline. Following screening of titles and abstracts, bibliometric data of the identified articles were exported into a spreadsheet, where further data related to continental origin, type of article, type of journal (endodontic or non-endodontic) and grant-funding were collated, with additional data concerning presence of journal impact factor, citations, news mentions and Altmetric-tracked-mentions and scores compiled using Clarivate, Scopus, ProQuest and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, cross-tabulations and un/adjusted negative binomial regression models (p < .05). RESULTS: The search retrieved 30 443 articles; 951 were included for analysis. Most articles originated from Asia (43.2%) with over 51.5% of articles published in endodontic journals and 80% published in a journal with an impact factor. Over three-quarters of articles were primary research, 141 were grant-funded, 165 had a news mention, 338 achieved an Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and 808 were cited. The five-highest ranked articles were mentioned in general news bulletins, five of the top-10 articles were primary research and six of the top-10 were published in endodontic journals. The highest AAS and citation count were 100 and 87, respectively. Adjusted models demonstrated that the type of article, publication in a journal with an impact factor, absence of grant-funding and coverage within general news bulletins predicted the AAS 's (p < .001). Article type, publication in an impact-factor journal and presence of an AAS were predictive of citations (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Article type and publication in a journal with an impact factor were significant predictors of both societal and professional impact of research articles within Endodontology in the short-term. Non grant-funded research and coverage in general news bulletins achieved greater societal impact, whereas an article achieving an AAS was also strongly related to professional impact.

Research and academic output evaluation for career initiation or progression: Critical issues for Health Professionals.

In current times, much stress is being laid on the evaluation of research productivity of researchers or faculty in addition to the academic qualifications and experience for the purposes of recruitment, promotion, and research grant funding. Over the years, several quantitative indices have been devised for this purpose. Some of these indices such as h-index, impact factor and e-index are being extensively used by research organizations, universities, accreditation bodies and funding agencies for basic scientists as well as health professionals. In the absence of any formal training, these parameters or their advantages and shortcomings may not be well understood by the health professionals, especially in the early stages of their careers and sometimes, even by the evaluators. A big unanswered question is the validity of the same criteria for health professionals as are applicable for the basic science researchers. Since health professional undertaking research assignments are neither adequately trained in basic research nor can they comprehend these indices well, the same yardstick to evaluate these two widely different groups of researchers often places the health professionals at a disadvantage.This paper aims to highlight certain vital issues related to the application of research productivity indicators for recruitment and career progression of health care professionals.

Sharing of retracted COVID-19 articles: an altmetric study.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores. METHODS: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation). RESULTS: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.

Navigating through our history in research: An altmetric analysis for publications by the full-time operative dentistry faculty at the Aga Khan University Hospital in the past decade.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the social dissemination of publications by fulltime faculty at a tertiary care facility. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, and comprised publication records of the fulltime Operative Dentistry faculty members between July 2011 till July 2021. The search was done on Google Scholar, Altmetric Explorer and PubMed electronic databases. After final screening, all the publications in PubMed-indexed journals, including in vitro studies, randomised controlled trials, original research articles, case reports and letters to the editor, for which the Altmetric Attention Score was available were included. RESULTS: Of the 225 publications identified, 34 (15%) formed the final sample. The cumulative citation count for the publications was 617 and Altmetric Attention Score was 158. There were 16 Facebook mentions and 163 tweets. CONCLUSION: The social impact of publications by the Operative Dentistry faculty over a decade was not convincing in terms of Altmetric Attention Score.

Correlation between scientometrics and altmetrics score of scholarly literature of Medical Journal Armed Forces India.

Background: Present article was an attempt to study correlation of scientometrics and altmetrics of scholarly output of Medical Journal Armed Forces India (MJAFI) during the period from 2010 to 2018. Methods: The study was carried out by "DIMENSIONS", Webometric Analyst 4.1, VOSviewer, version 1.6.10, database to identify year-wise number of publications, their accessibility, altmetric attention, field citation ratio, and relative citation ratio of top 100 articles between 2010 and 2018. Pearson correlation test was used to assess data statistically using SPSS software, version 21. Results: The study found that maximum publications were in 2015, i.e. 21.44% followed by 2018, i.e. 11.52% with 1053 articles open access and 318 articles closed access (1371). Total 317 altmetric attention received by total 1371 articles, and "Clinical Sciences" category published most of publications with 0.55 mean field citation ratio (FCR) and 0.31 mean relative citation ratio (RCR). The positive correlation value between citations and altmetric scores obtained was 0.88. It was also observed that the topmost article among the top 100 has a maximum RCR (8.24) and FCR (19.3). Conclusion: Present study found that articles published in MJAFI are getting favorable attention at both academic as well as social platform; however, the constant improvement and rigorous maintenance of standards is utmost important by publishing high-quality evidence-based studies and its subsequent dissemination at both academic and non-academic platform, which might be beneficial to not only medical field but also well-being of entire human race.

Virtual Laboratories- A historical review and bibliometric analysis of the past three decades.

Online and virtual teaching-learning has been a panacea that most educational institutions adopted from the dire need created by COVID-19. We provide a comprehensive bibliometric study of 9523 publications on virtual laboratories in higher education covering the years 1991 to 2021. Influential bibliometrics such as publications and citations, productive countries, contributing institutions, funders, journals, authors, and bibliographic couplings were studied using the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol. A new metric to complement citations called Field Weighted Citation Impact was introduced that considers the differences in research behavior across disciplines. Findings show that 72% of the research work was published between 2011-and 2021, most likely due to digitalization, with the highest number of publications in 2020-2021 highlighting the impact of the pandemic. Top contributing institutions were from the developed economies of Spain, Germany, and the United States. The citation impact from publications with international co-authors is the highest, highlighting the importance of co-authoring papers with different countries. For the first time, Altmetrics in the context of virtual labs were studied though a very low correlation was observed between citations and Altmetrics Attention Score. Still, the overall percentage of publications with attention showed linear growth. Our work also highlights that virtual laboratory could play a significant role in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, specifically SDG4-Quality Education, which largely remains under-addressed.

How do urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction terms used in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery research relate to social media indicators?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The association between social media (SoMe) indicators and citation metrics is still controversial. we aimed to evaluate the frequency of urogynecology-related terms ("urogynecology" [UG] and "pelvic floor/dysfunction" [PF/PFD]) mentioned by traditional databases (Web of Science [WOS]) and journal ranking indicators (SCImago), as well as their association with SoMe (Altmetric database). METHODS: In April 2019, two authors performed a search that was divided into three steps. The first one was to assess journals within the WOS Obstetrics/Gynecology and Urology categories updated to 2017 using UG and PF/PFD. The second step was to rank these studies in SCImago by the highest numbers of WOS and to correlate with journal h-index and SJR. The third step was to analyze SoMe indicators such as the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) for each study and journal retrieved. RESULTS: The International Urogynecology Journal (IUJ) and Neurourology and Urodynamics (NAU) were the first (n = 1,394) and second (n = 974) most highly cited journals when using UG and PFD. IUJ also presented manuscripts with the highest AAS for UG and PF/PFD. Social media represented 74-93% of AAS calculated among the 20 top cited studies. For UG, SoMe presented 8,050 mentions, led by Twitter (n = 7,326). The same distribution was seen for PFD (8,493 mentions for SoMe, Twitter with 7,653). The higher the WOS citation, the higher the AAS (r = 0.483; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: UG and PF/PFD terms are highly cited in databases and IUJ was the journal most frequently connected with them. Among SoMe tools, Twitter was the most frequently cited. WOS citations correlated with AAS.

Tracking trends of transgender health research online: are researchers and the public on the same page?

Altmetric Explorer was searched for the most popular online articles published in Pubmed-indexed journals. The 75 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) were screened for article information (date, journal, access), authorship (number of authors, affiliation and origin of the corresponding author), and research (type, subject, funding). The reviewed articles displayed a mean AAS of 241.52, were broadcast 17.03 times by news agencies, posted on Twitter 101.47 times, downloaded by 67.21 Mendeley readers, and received 62.67 citations. There was intense online interest in the transgender health literature, mainly related to mental health and social well-being. Online visibility of transgender health articles was not significantly correlated with citation counts, implying that the public, likely including transgender persons and allies, may place emphasis on different health issues than scholars. Monitoring altmetrics and interactions on electronic media may help researchers conduct research that is more meaningful to transgender individuals, and to society in general.

Information and Scientific Impact of Advanced Therapies in the Age of Mass Media: Altmetrics-Based Analysis of Tissue Engineering.

BACKGROUND: Tissue engineering (TE) constitutes a multidisciplinary field aiming to construct artificial tissues to regenerate end-stage organs. Its development has taken place since the last decade of the 20th century, entailing a clinical revolution. TE research groups have worked and shared relevant information in the mass media era. Thus, it would be interesting to study the online dimension of TE research and to compare it with traditional measures of scientific impact. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the online dimension of TE documents from 2012 to 2018 using metadata obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Altmetric and to develop a prediction equation for the impact of TE documents from altmetric scores. METHODS: We analyzed 10,112 TE documents through descriptive and statistical methods. First, the TE temporal evolution was exposed for WoS and 15 online platforms (news, blogs, policy, Twitter, patents, peer review, Weibo, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, F1000, Q&A, video, and Mendeley Readers). The 10 most cited TE original articles were ranked according to the normalized WoS citations and the normalized Altmetric Attention Score. Second, to better comprehend the TE online framework, correlation and factor analyses were performed based on the suitable results previously obtained for the Bartlett sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin tests. Finally, the linear regression model was applied to elucidate the relation between academics and online media and to construct a prediction equation for TE from altmetrics data. RESULTS: TE dynamic shows an upward trend in WoS citations, Twitter, Mendeley Readers, and Altmetric Scores. However, WoS and Altmetric rankings for the most cited documents clearly differ. When compared, the best correlation results were obtained for Mendeley Readers and WoS (ρ=0.71). In addition, the factor analysis identified 6 factors that could explain the previously observed differences between academic institutions and the online platforms evaluated. At this point, the mathematical model constructed is able to predict and explain more than 40% of TE WoS citations from Altmetric scores. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific information related to the construction of bioartificial tissues increasingly reaches society through different online media. Because the focus of TE research importantly differs when the academic institutions and online platforms are compared, basic and clinical research groups, academic institutions, and health politicians should make a coordinated effort toward the design and implementation of adequate strategies for information diffusion and population health education.

Evaluating Scholars' Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media-Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric.

BACKGROUND: The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars' influence and impact. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (P<.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (P<.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation. CONCLUSIONS: We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media-based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

Harnessing the True Power of Altmetrics to Track Engagement.

Altmetrics has recently been at the forefront of tracking medical literature propagation on social media in the modern era. With the rapidly evolving landscape of social media for academia, there's room to revise the approach. The authors discuss current limitations and suggest changes to make online attention trackers more robust and wholesome. Medical literature propagated on currently popular social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok are not accounted for by altmetrics. For altmetrics to become a more robust tool it is vital that it keeps up with the times and accounts for representation of data from these platforms as well. Greater inclusivity, dynamic weightage of different social media platforms based on location dependant availability and usage, and period re-evaluation based on prevailing trends may help metrics reflect the true attention garnered by published research. Besides, development of hybrid scores with separate components to reflect online attention and traditional citations may provide readers a more fair and balanced perception of the actual importance of an article. With the changes proposed, altmetrics has the potential to become a much more inclusive and reflective tool in times to come.