Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments

Does neuroscience research change behaviour? A scoping review and case study in obesity neuroscience

The language employed by researchers to define and discuss diseases can itself be a determinant of health. Despite this, the framing of diseases in medical research literature is largely unexplored. This scoping review examines a prevalent medical issue with social determinants influenced by the framing of its pathogenesis: obesity. Specifically, we compare the currently dominant framing of obesity as an addiction to food with the emerging frame of obesity developing from neuroinflammation. We triangulate both corpus linguistic and bibliometric analysis of the top 200 most engaging neuroscience journal articles discussing obesity that were published open access in the past 10 years. The constructed Neurobesity Corpus is available for public use. The scoping review analysis confirmed that neuroinflammation is an emerging way for obesity to be framed in medical research. Importantly, the articles analysed that discussed neuroinflammation were less likely to use crisis terminology, such as referring to an obesity "epidemic". We highlight a potential relationship between the adoption of addiction frames and the use of stigmatising language in medical research.

Effective communications strategies to increase the impact of environmental health research

BACKGROUND

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are the subject of a growing body of research with the potential to positively impact public and ecological health. However, to effect positive change, findings must be communicated beyond the scientific community.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to (a) evaluate the relationships between communications strategy, media attention, and scholarly citations of PFAS research and (b) offer guidance for researchers and communications professionals who would like to publicize future work and increase its impact.

METHODS

We analyzed 273 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies on PFAS human health impacts with publication years 2018-2020, as collected by a pre-existing database. We investigated whether a press release was issued, open-access status, abstract and press release readability, timing of publication and press release distribution, journal impact factor, study type and sample size, statistical significance of finding(s), number of scholarly citations, and the Altmetric Attention Score (a measure of media attention).

DISCUSSION

Of papers reporting a statistically significant association with health harm, those with a press release received 20 times more media attention (as assessed by Altmetric scores) than those that did not. However, only 6.2% of all papers and 7.8% of significant papers issued one. Among papers with a press release, media attention was positively correlated with better abstract and press release readability and speed in issuing the press release. Scholarly citations were positively correlated with media attention, presence of a press release, and open-access status.

CONCLUSION

Most papers with significant findings on PFAS are published without a press release and receive little or no media attention. This reduces the likelihood that important research is reaching the public and decisionmakers who can translate science into action. Issuing a press release and receiving media attention also appear to increase scholarly citations. We provide recommendations for authors to increase the reach and impact of future papers.

Media coverage of cancer therapeutics: A review of literature

BACKGROUND

Information and stories about cancer treatment are increasingly available to patients and the general public through lay media, websites, blogs and social media. While these resources may be helpful to supplement information provided during physician-patient discussions, there is growing concern about the extent to which media reports accurately reflect advances in cancer care. This review aimed to understand the landscape of published research which has described media coverage of cancer treatments.

METHODS

This literature review included peer-reviewed primary research articles that reported how cancer treatments are portrayed in the lay media. A structured literature search of Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed by three authors for inclusion. Three reviewers, each independently reviewed eligible studies; discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. The content of the eligible studies reflected two thematic categories: articles that reviewed specific drugs/cancer treatment (n = 7) and articles that described media coverage of cancer treatment in general terms (n = 7). Key findings include the media's frequent and unfounded use of superlatives and hype for new cancer treatments. Parallel to this, media reports over-emphasize potential treatment benefits and do not present a balanced view of risks of side effects, cost, and death. At a broad level, there is emerging evidence that media reporting of cancer treatments may directly impact patient care and policy-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies problems in current media reports of new cancer advances - especially with undue use of superlatives and hype. Given the frequency with which patients access this information and the potential for it to influence policy, there is a need for additional research in this space in addition to educational interventions with health journalists. The oncology community - scientists and clinicians - must ensure that we are not contributing to these problems.

Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications

Article-level measures of publication impact (alternative metrics or altmetrics) can help authors and other stakeholders assess engagement with their research and the success of their communication efforts. The wide variety of altmetrics can make interpretation and comparative assessment difficult; available summary tools are either narrowly focused or do not reflect the differing values of metrics from a stakeholder perspective. We created the EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index, a value-based, multi-component metric framework for medical publications. Metric weighting and grouping were informed by a statistical analysis of 2891 Phase III clinical trial publications and by a panel of stakeholders who provided value assessments. The EMPIRE Index comprises three component scores (social, scholarly, and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics indicating a different aspect of engagement with the publication. These are averaged to provide a total impact score and benchmarked so that a score of 100 equals the mean scores of Phase III clinical trial publications in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2016. Predictor metrics are defined to estimate likely long-term impact. The social impact component correlated strongly with the Altmetric Attention Score and the scholarly impact component correlated modestly with CiteScore, with the societal impact component providing unique insights. Analysis of fresh metrics collected 1 year after the initial dataset, including an independent sample, showed that scholarly and societal impact scores continued to increase, whereas social impact scores did not. Analysis of NEJM ‘notable articles’ showed that observational studies had the highest total impact and component scores, except for societal impact, for which surgical studies had the highest score. The EMPIRE Index provides a richer assessment of publication value than standalone traditional and alternative metrics and may enable medical researchers to assess the impact of publications easily and to understand what characterizes impactful research.

All the research that’s fit to print: Open access and the news media

The goal of the open access (OA) movement is to help everyone access scholarly research, not just those who can afford to. However, most studies looking at whether OA has met this goal have focused on whether other scholars are making use of OA research. Few have considered how the broader public, including the news media, uses OA research. I sought to answer whether the news media mentions OA articles more or less than paywalled articles by looking at articles published from 2010 through 2018 in journals across all four quartiles of the Journal Impact Factor using data obtained through Altmetric.com and Web of Science. Gold, green and hybrid OA articles all had a positive correlation with the number of news mentions received. News mentions for OA articles did see a dip in 2018, although they remained higher than those for paywalled articles.

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

BACKGROUND

Social media has been used to disseminate the contents of scientific articles. To measure the impact of this, a new tool called Altmetric was created. Altmetric aims to quantify the impact of each article through online media. This systematic review aims to describe the associations between the publishing journal and published article variables and Altmetric scores.

METHODS

Searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Cochrane Library were conducted. We extracted data related to both the publishing article and the publishing journal associated with Altmetric scores. The methodological quality of included articles was analyzed by the Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies.

RESULTS

A total of 19 articles were considered eligible. These articles summarized a total of 573,842 studies. Citation counts, journal impact factor, access counts, papers published as open access, and press releases generated by the publishing journal were associated with Altmetric scores. The magnitude of these associations ranged from weak to strong.

CONCLUSION

Citation counts and journal impact factor are the most common variables associated with Altmetric scores. Other variables such as access counts, papers published in open access journals, and the use of press releases are also likely to be associated with online media attention.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review does not contain health-related outcomes. Therefore, it is not eligible for registration.

Misrepresentation of mild traumatic brain injury research in press releases

BACKGROUND

Press releases from academic medical centers often form the basis for health and science news stories. Press release coverage of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research has not been formally appraised in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic content analysis of mTBI-based press releases.

DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

EurekAlert! (eurekalert.org), the main distribution engine for scientific press releases.

PARTICIPANTS

Press releases indexed between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 containing a minimum of 150 words.

INTERVENTIONS

Preestablished, investigator-generated criteria delineating aspects of misinformation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Press releases were evaluated for manifestations of "spin," including misleading title, misleading reporting, misleading claims, and inappropriate extrapolation.

RESULTS

Our database search yielded 125 entries within the specified time period. Of these, 66 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-five of 66 (83%) press releases exhibited at least one manifestation of spin. We identified 38 (58%) with misleading titles, 49 (74%) with misleading reporting, 44 (67%) with misleading claims, and 38 (58%) with inappropriate extrapolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed a high degree of spin in recent press releases dedicated to mTBI research. The reports often overstated the strengths and practical impact of the study, publicize substandard research without clinical relevance, while downplaying or failing to report limitations and caveats. Misrepresentation in press releases can affect real-life medical decisions and outcomes.

Manuscript characteristics associated with the altmetrics score and social media presence: an analysis of seven spine journals

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Impact factor, citation rate, and other traditional measures of scholarly impact do not account for the role that social media has in the dissemination of research. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) quantifies the active online presence of individual articles on various platforms (eg, Twitter, Facebook).

PURPOSE

We sought to better understand the factors associated with greater online attention and AAS in seven spine journals.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

No patients were included in this study. We analyzed 380 articles in seven major spine journals.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Extracted manuscript characteristics included AAS; number of Twitter, Facebook, and news outlet mentions; number of citations, references, academic institutions, and authors; and sample size, geographic region, subject of study, and level of evidence.

METHODS

All original scientific manuscripts published in the official January, February, and March 2017 issues of Spine, The Spine Journal, Spine Deformity, Journal of Neurosurgery-Spine, Clinical Spine Surgery, Global Spine Journal, and European Spine Journal were identified. The correlation of AAS and number of citations was determined by Spearman's Rho (ρ) correlation coefficient. Manuscript factors associated with AAS were determined by a multivariable linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 380 manuscripts were included in the analysis. The average AAS across all seven journals was 4.9 (SD: 19.4; Range: 0-356), with the highest average AAS reported for The Spine Journal at 8.0 (SD: 13; Range: 0-60). There was a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations (ρ = .32; p < .05); this relationship was individually present for four out of the seven included journals. In addition, number of references was associated with higher average manuscript AAS (β: 0.16 [95% CI: 0.002-0.32]; p < .05). No manuscript characteristics were associated with lower AAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of seven spine journals revealed a weak, positive correlation between AAS and number of citations. Number of references was associated with higher AAS. We believe these findings may be useful to authors seeking ways to maximize the impact of their research.

Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.

The level of evidence, scientific impact and social impact of clinical studies in periodontology: A methodological study

AIMS

To analyse the level of evidence (LOE) of clinical studies in the field of periodontology, and to investigate whether LOE is a predictor of scientific impact and social impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical studies published in five leading periodontal journals during 2015-2019 were identified. The LOE of included studies were assessed with a modified LOE classification system based on Oxford 2009 LOE, Oxford 2011 LOE and GRADE guidelines. Citation counts were harvested from Web of Science and Scopus. Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) were obtained from Altmetric Explorer. Multivariable generalized estimation equation (GEE) analyses were used to investigate association between LOE and citation count, as well as between LOE and AAS.

RESULTS

Among 768 studies included, the proportion of level-1, level-2, level-3 and level-4 was 10.4%, 44.8%, 13.7% and 31.1%, respectively. In the multivariable GEE analyses, high LOE was a significant predictor of higher average citation count (p = .010) and higher AAS (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The LOE of clinical studies in the periodontal field is relatively high in general, although it varies significantly in different journals. Studies with high LOE tend to have greater scientific impact and social impact than low LOE studies.

Top 100 Publications as Measured by Altmetrics in the Field of Central Nervous System Inflammatory Demyelinating Disease

Background

Altmetrics analyze the visibility of articles in social media and estimate their impact on the general population. We performed an altmetric analysis of articles on central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease (CIDD) and investigated its correlation with citation analysis.

Methods

Articles in the 91 journals comprising the “clinical neurology,” “neuroscience,” and “medicine, general, and internal” Web of Science categories were searched for their relevance to the CIDD topic. The Altmetric Explorer database was used to determine the Altmetric.com Attention Score (AAS) values of the selected articles. The papers with the top 100 AAS values were characterized.

Results

Articles most frequently mentioned online were primarily published after 2014 and were published in journals with high impact factors. All articles except one were dealt with the issue of multiple sclerosis. Most were original articles, but editorials were also common. Novel treatments and risk factors are the most frequent topics. The AAS was weakly correlated with journal impact factors; however, no link was found between the AAS and the number of citations.

Conclusions

We present the top 100 most frequently mentioned CIDD articles in online media using an altmetric approach. Altmetrics can rapidly offer alternative information on the impact of research based on a broader audience and can complement traditional metrics.

Automatically Appraising the Credibility of Vaccine-Related Web Pages Shared on Social Media: A Twitter Surveillance Study

Background

Tools used to appraise the credibility of health information are time-consuming to apply and require context-specific expertise, limiting their use for quickly identifying and mitigating the spread of misinformation as it emerges.

Objective

The aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of vaccine-related Twitter posts linked to Web pages of low credibility and measure the potential reach of those posts.

Methods

Sampling from 143,003 unique vaccine-related Web pages shared on Twitter between January 2017 and March 2018, we used a 7-point checklist adapted from validated tools and guidelines to manually appraise the credibility of 474 Web pages. These were used to train several classifiers (random forests, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks) using the text from a Web page to predict whether the information satisfies each of the 7 criteria. Estimating the credibility of all other Web pages, we used the follower network to estimate potential exposures relative to a credibility score defined by the 7-point checklist.

Results

The best-performing classifiers were able to distinguish between low, medium, and high credibility with an accuracy of 78% and labeled low-credibility Web pages with a precision of over 96%. Across the set of unique Web pages, 11.86% (16,961 of 143,003) were estimated as low credibility and they generated 9.34% (1.64 billion of 17.6 billion) of potential exposures. The 100 most popular links to low credibility Web pages were each potentially seen by an estimated 2 million to 80 million Twitter users globally.

Conclusions

The results indicate that although a small minority of low-credibility Web pages reach a large audience, low-credibility Web pages tend to reach fewer users than other Web pages overall and are more commonly shared within certain subpopulations. An automatic credibility appraisal tool may be useful for finding communities of users at higher risk of exposure to low-credibility vaccine communications.

Longitudinal relationship between social media activity and article citations in the journal Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Social media activity in the area of scientific journal publications has increased significantly over the last decade. Several studies have suggested that journal article citations can be positively impacted by an increase in social media activity. Preliminary data have also suggested that published articles in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology that were discussed on Twitter were independently associated with higher citation rates compared with those that were not. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) is the most widely cited endoscopy-focused journal in the world. We aimed to assess the association of social media exposure of published articles in GIE and its impact on article citations.

METHODS

Data regarding journal article publication status, number of citations per article, and social media exposure per article using Altmetric data were collected from the publisher. All original articles published in GIE from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed. Editorials, case reports, and other nonresearch correspondence were excluded. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess for independent Altmetric predictors of higher citation rates over time. Logistic regression was used to assess the impact of an article mention on various social media platforms and whether it was cited during the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 2361 original research articles were evaluated; 2050 articles (86.8%) were cited at least once during the follow-up period. Mean number of citations per article was 16.8 ± 23. The average Altmetric Attention score was 2.0 ± 13. The most profound independent predictor of article citation was whether an article was tweeted (odds ratio [OR], 14.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.93-22.45). Other predictors were Facebook posts (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.51) and number of Mendeley readers (OR, 1.359; 95% CI, 1.28-1.45). On multivariable linear regression, number of tweeters (β = 2.3, P = .022), F1000 reviews (β = 5.87, P < .001), policy documents (β = 7.6, P < .001), and number of Mendeley readers (β = 14.21, P < .001) were significantly associated with higher citation rates of published articles.

CONCLUSIONS

For original articles published in GIE, there was a strong association between social media exposure on Twitter and rates of journal article citations. To a lesser degree, Facebook posts and Mendeley readers also were associated with a higher rate of article citations. This could represent both cause and effect and may be representative of higher quality articles being more commonly mentioned on social media by third-party users. A randomized controlled study evaluating different degrees of social media exposure on individual articles could be considered to further assess for causality.

Making headlines: an analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media

OBJECTIVE

To characterise how online media coverage of journal articles on cancer funded by the US government varies by cancer type and stage of the cancer control continuum and to compare the disease prevalence rates with the amount of funded research published for each cancer type and with the amount of media attention each receives.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The United States.

PARTICIPANTS

The subject of analysis was 11 436 journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016. These articles were identified via PubMed and characterised as receiving online media attention based on data provided by Altmetric.

RESULTS

16.8% (n=1925) of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Frequency of journal articles differed substantially across the common cancers, with breast cancer (n=1284), lung cancer (n=630) and prostate cancer (n=586) being the subject of the most journal articles. Roughly one-fifth to one-fourth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Scientific articles also covered the stages of the cancer continuum to varying degrees. Across the 13 most common cancer types, 4.4% (n=206) of articles focused on prevention and control, 11.7% (n=550) on diagnosis and 10.7% (n=502) on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in online media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination.

Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.