Meta-Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences

The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF): A 30-Year Retrospective Analysis

Federal government research grants provide limited funding to plastic surgeon-scientists, with reconstructive research taking precedence over aesthetic research. The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to support innovative, diverse research endeavors within aesthetic surgery. A total of 130 ASERF-funded studies and 32 non-funded applications from 1992 to 2022 were reviewed. Kruskal Wallis, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests were utilized to assess the potential relationship between self-identified gender, practice setting, geographical location, and study type with individual grant amounts and grant funding decision. Although significant differences were observed between male and female grant recipient h-indices (P < .05), there were no differences in the amount of funding they received (P > .05). Grant amounts were also consistent between study types as well as principal investigator practice settings and geographical locations (P > .05). The subanalysis revealed that the practice setting of the primary investigator (PI) was the only variable to exhibit a significant association with the decision to award funding (P < .05). Further, of the 61 applicants between 2017 and 2022, only 2 PIs self-identified as female. ASERF serves as an excellent funding source for global aesthetic surgery. To promote further research diversification, increased emphasis should be placed on recruiting applicants from outside academia and those who identify as female or gender nonbinary.

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.

A bibliometric and Altmetric analysis of the 100 top most cited articles on dentin adhesives

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the 100 top-cited articles on dentin adhesives utilizing comprehensive bibliometric and altmetric analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Institute of Scientific Information Web of Knowledge database was used to compile the top-cited articles published from 1945 through February 12, 2023. Citation counts were manually retrieved for each article from Scopus, Google Scholar, Dimensions, and Altmetric. The articles were analyzed in terms of their number of citations, year, journal name, author (name, institution, and country), and type and specific field of study. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the results.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that the top 100 cited articles originated from 18 English-language journals and collectively accumulated a remarkable 34526 citations. The article with the highest number of citations garnered 1288 references. Among authors, Van Meerbeek B. stood out with nine articles and 4650 citations, followed by Pashley D.H. with six articles and 2769 citations. Japan was the leading contributor by country, while the Catholic University of Leuven led in terms of institutions with 20 articles.

CONCLUSION

According to this study, basic research and review articles garnered the most citations, respectively. The citation analysis revealed different trends for researchers, the first being that researchers have focused on basic fields such as the ultramorphology of dentin and adhesive interfaces, followed by bond strength to dentin. Two studies on clinical experiences suggested that studies with high-level evidence, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled clinical trials, are required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

It is identified that more studies with high-level evidence-based research are needed in the field of dental adhesives.

A New (Digital) Era in Medical Journalism: Leveraging Social Media and Other Online Tools to Increase Reach and Engagement

Social media is a popular communication and marketing tool in modern society, with the power to reach and engage large audiences. Many members of the medical and radiology communities have embraced social media platforms, particularly X (formerly known as Twitter), as an efficient and economic means for performing patient outreach, disseminating research and educational materials, building networks, and promoting diversity. Editors of medical journals with a clear vision and relevant expertise can leverage social media and other digital tools to advance the journal's mission, further their interests, and directly benefit journal authors and readers. For editors, social media offers a means to increase article visibility and downloads, expand awareness of volunteer opportunities, and use metrics and other feedback to inform future initiatives. Authors benefit from broader dissemination of their work, which aids establishment of a national or international reputation. Readers can receive high-quality high-yield content in a digestible format directly on their devices while actively engaging with journal editors and authors in the online community. The authors highlight the multifaceted benefits of social media engagement and digital tool implementation in the context of medical journalism and summarize the activities of the RadioGraphics Social Media and Digital Innovation Team. By enumerating the social media activities of RadioGraphics and describing the underlying rationale for each activity, the authors present a blueprint for other medical journals considering similar initiatives. ©RSNA, 2023.

Supporting grant reviewers through the scientometric ranking of applicants

INTRODUCTION

Comparing the scientific output of different researchers applying for a grant is a tedious work. In Hungary, to help reviewers to rapidly rank the scientific productivity of a researcher, a grant decision support tool was established and is available at www.scientometrics.org. In the present study, our goal was to assess the impact of this decision support tool on grant review procedures.

METHODS

The established, publicly available scientometric portal uses four metrics, including the H-index, the yearly citations without self-citations, the number of publications in the last five years, and the number of highly cited publications of a researcher within eleven independent scientific disciplines. Publication-age matched researchers are then ranked and the results are provided to grant reviewers. A questionnaire was completed by reviewers regarding utilization of the scientometric ranking system. The outcome of the grant selection was analyzed by comparing scientometric parameters of applying and funded applicants. We compared three grant allocation rounds before to two grant allocation rounds after the introduction of the portal.

RESULTS

The scientometric decision support tool was introduced in 2020 to assist grant selection in Hungary and all basic research grant applicants (n = 6,662) were screened. The average score of funded proposals compared to submitted proposals increased by 94% after the introduction of the ranking. Correlation between ranking scores and actual grant selection was strong in life and material sciences but some scientific panels had opposite correlation in social sciences and humanities. When comparing selection outcome to H-index across all applicants, both type I and type II errors decreased. All together 540 reviewers provided feedback representing all eleven scientific disciplines and 83.05% of the reviewers (especially younger reviewers) found the ranking useful.

CONCLUSIONS

The scientometric decision support tool can save time and increase transparency of grant review processes. The majority of reviewers found the ranking-based scientometric analysis useful when assessing the publication performance of an applicant.

Deep Impact: A Study on the Impact of Data Papers and Datasets in the Humanities and Social Sciences

The humanities and social sciences (HSS) have recently witnessed an exponential growth in data-driven research. In response, attention has been afforded to datasets and accompanying data papers as outputs of the research and dissemination ecosystem. In 2015, two data journals dedicated to HSS disciplines appeared in this landscape: Journal of Open Humanities Data (JOHD) and Research Data Journal for the Humanities and Social Sciences (RDJ). In this paper, we analyse the state of the art in the landscape of data journals in HSS using JOHD and RDJ as exemplars by measuring performance and the deep impact of data-driven projects, including metrics (citation count; Altmetrics, views, downloads, tweets) of data papers in relation to associated research papers and the reuse of associated datasets. Our findings indicate: that data papers are published following the deposit of datasets in a repository and usually following research articles; that data papers have a positive impact on both the metrics of research papers associated with them and on data reuse; and that Twitter hashtags targeted at specific research campaigns can lead to increases in data papers’ views and downloads. HSS data papers improve the visibility of datasets they describe, support accompanying research articles, and add to transparency and the open research agenda.

Predicting Citation Impact from Altmetric Attention in Clinical and Translational Research: Do Big Splashes Lead to Ripple Effects?

Publications are commonly used to evaluate the productivity and impact of research programs. Traditional metrics examine publication impact through slowly accumulating academic citations. “Altmetrics” are a new way to describe early publication influence in nonacademic media/community spheres (news, tweets, and blogs). Articles with significant altmetric attention make a big splash of immediate impact, whereas papers with high rates of academic citation reflect ripple effects of influence over time. Past research has found weak associations between altmetrics and academic citations. However, no previous research has focused on clinical/translational research, which aims to translate scientific discoveries to public use. Further, no previous research has assessed the relationship between altmetrics and modern citation impact factors like the National Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). It is also unclear whether publication in journals with higher journal impact factors (JIFs) may drive both public attention and academic impact. We investigated whether early altmetric indicators of splash predict citation ripples, beyond the effect of the JIF. For a portfolio of 2188 publications supported by the NIH’s Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance from 2007–2020, we collected 2020 Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), 2020 JIFs, and 2021 RCRs. All three were significantly correlated with one another. Regression analyses revealed that AAS significantly predicts later RCR, controlling for JIF and publication year. Findings indicate that in clinical/translational science, articles that make a big splash of altmetric attention have ripple effects through increased citation influence, which is not entirely due to publication in higher impact journals. Altmetric attention may be a useful early indicator of eventual influence and potential for translational advancement.

The top 100 most impactful articles on the anterior cruciate ligament: An altmetric analysis of online media

Objectives:

To identify the top 100 most impactful anterior cruciate ligament articles in online media as measured by the Altmetric Attention Score and compare their characteristics to the most-cited anterior cruciate ligament articles in the scientific literature.

Methods:

The Altmetric database was queried to identify all published articles pertaining to the anterior cruciate ligament. The search yielded 9445 articles, which were stratified by highest to lowest Altmetric Attention Score. The top 100 articles were included. Collected data included article type, article topic, journal name, and online mentions in news, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, and other sources. The geographic origin of each article was also determined based on the institutional affiliation of the first author.

Results:

Altmetric Attention Score of the top 100 anterior cruciate ligament articles ranged from 109 to 2193 (median 172.0, interquartile range 137.5–271.5). Of the 100 articles, 65 were published in three journals: American Journal of Sports Medicine, British Journal of Sports Medicine, and Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. The most prevalent article type was original research (60%), followed by systematic review/meta-analysis (18%). The most prevalent article topic was rehabilitation and return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (22%), followed by epidemiology/risk factors (16%), injury prevention (14%), and biomechanics of anterior cruciate ligament injuries (14%). Of the top 100 articles, 54% were American, 31% were European, and 15% were published in other countries outside of the United States and Europe.

Conclusion:

This study used Altmetric Attention Score to identify the 100 most engaged anterior cruciate ligament articles in online media. The characteristics of these articles differed substantially from the most-cited anterior cruciate ligament articles in the literature with regard to article type, article topic, geographic origin, and publication journal. These findings suggest that alternative metrics measure distinct components of anterior cruciate ligament article engagement and add an important dimension to understanding the overall impact of published research on the anterior cruciate ligament.

The Correlation between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Orthopaedic Literature

BACKGROUND

Clinicians and medical researchers increasingly turn to nonformal online platforms to promote research. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a quantitative measurement of online influence of research in real time. The objective of this study is to determine if AAS correlates with traditional bibliometrics in the orthopaedic literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the 15 orthopaedic journals with the highest impact factor, the 10 most cited articles from each journal were reviewed for 2014 -2017. For each article, AAS was collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet application and citation count from SCOPUS. Journal impact factor was recorded using Journal Citation Reports. Statistical analysis included Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 600 articles were analyzed. A significant positive correlation was found between citation count and AAS for 2014 (r = 0.3188, p < 0.0001), and no correlation for 2015 (r = 0.1504, P = 0.0653), 2016 (r = 0.0087, P = 0.9157), and 2017 (r = 0.0061, P = 0.9408). There was no significant correlation between impact factor and AAS in 2014 (r = 0.4312, P = 0.1085), 2015 (r = 0.3850, P = 0.1565), 2016 (r = 0.1460, P = 0.6035) and 2017 (r = 0.0451 P = 0.8732).

CONCLUSIONS

AAS and traditional bibliometrics are currently not strongly correlated in orthopaedic literature. Citations take years to accumulate and AAS represents immediate influence of an article. An amalgamation of traditional bibliometrics and AAS may prove useful in determining the short- and long-term impact and influence of publications in orthopaedics.