No abstract

IntroductionCitation counts of articles have been used to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool.ObjectivesThe aims of the study were to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores.MethodsThe Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medical professionalism, and the characteristics of each article were identified. The altmetric database was searched to identify report for each identified article. A model to assess the relationship between the number of citations and each of the key characteristics as well as altmetric scores was developed.ResultsNo correlations were found between the number of citations and number of years since publication (p=0.192), number of institutes (p=0.081), number of authors (p=0.270), females in authorship (p=0.150) or number of grants (p=0.384). The altmetric scores varied from 0 to 155, total=806, median=5.0, (IQR=20). Twitter (54%) and Mendeley (62%) were the most popular altmetric resources. No correlation was found between the number of citations and the altmetric scores (p=0.661). However, a correlation was found for articles published in 2007 and after (n=17, p=0.023). To further assess these variables, a model was developed using multivariate analysis; did not show significant differences across subgroups. The topics covered were learning and teaching professionalism, curriculum issues, professional and unprofessional behaviour.ConclusionsAltmetric scores of articles were significantly correlated with citations counts for articles published in 2007 and after. Highly cited articles were produced mainly by the USA, Canada and the UK. The study reflects the emerging role of social media in research dissemination. Future studies should investigate the specific features of highly cited articles and factors reinforcing distribution of research data among scholars and non-scholars.

ObjectiveTo identify the top-cited articles in gastroenterology and hepatology, and analyse their characteristics.MethodsTwo searches were conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded database; a search of 69 journals under the category ‘Gastroenterology and Hepatology’ (list A) and a keyword search of all journals (list B). The search results were analysed and the inter-rater coefficient of agreement between evaluators was measured using Cohen κ.ResultsThe number of citations varied from 1049 to 2959 in list A and from 1929 to 5500 in list B. In both lists, the majority of articles were research papers. No significant correlations were found between the number of citations and the number of years since publication (R2=0.00992, p=0.473 and R2=0.00202, p=0.757, respectively). However, the mean number of citations of papers published before the year 2000 was lower than those published after 2000 (36.70±19.31 vs 106.03±39.22). No correlation was found between number of authors and the number of citations (R2=0.04352, p=0.130), but strong correlations were found between the number of institutes involved or number of countries and the number of citations (R2=0.275, p<0.001 and R2=0.16181, p=0.003, respectively). Females were under-represented in authorship (45 vs 254, p=0.004). Only 21 papers (of 54) in list A were supported by grants. No correlation was found between number of grants received and the number of citations (R2=0.02573, p=0.247). The inter-rater agreement between evaluators had a Cohen κ coefficient 0.76–0.84.ConclusionsTop-cited articles were not only published in highly ranked journals specialising in Gastroenterology and Hepatology but also in 14 journals not specialised in this field. The number of citations correlated with the number of institutes and the number of countries involved but not with the number of grants received or the number of authors. Females were under-represented in the authorship.