How Does Open Access Publication Impact Readership and Citation Rates of Lumbar Spine Literature?

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 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.

Open Access Publication in Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Is Not Associated With Increased Citations

BACKGROUND

Open access (OA) publication is growing in total joint arthroplasty literature. While OA manuscripts are free to view, these publications require a fee from authors. This study aimed to compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and non-OA publications in the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature.

METHODS

There were 9,606 publications included, with 4,669 (48.61%) as OA articles. The TKA articles were identified from 2016 to 2022. Articles were grouped as OA or non-OA and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a weighted count of social media attention, and the Mendeley readership were analyzed using negative binomial regressions while adjusting for days since publication.

RESULTS

The OA articles had greater mean AAS (13.45 versus 8.42, P = .012) and Mendeley readership (43.91 versus 36.72, P < .001). OA was not an independent predictor of number of citations when compared to non-OA articles (13.98 versus 13.63, P = .914). Subgroup analysis of studies in the top 10 arthroplasty journals showed OA was not an independent predictor of AAS (13.51 versus 9.53, P = .084) or number of citations (19.51 versus 18.74, P = .495) but was an independent predictor of Mendeley readership (49.05 versus 40.25, P < .003).

CONCLUSION

The OA publications in the TKA literature were associated with increased social media attention, but not overall citations. This association was not observed among the top 10 journals. Authors may use these results to weigh the relative importance of readership, citations, and online engagement to the cost of OA publication.

Publication rates of abstracts presented across 6 major spine specialty conferences

Background

Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences.

Methods

We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports.

Results

A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001).

Conclusions

Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.