Altmetrics and citations: the impact of journal publications

Ao, Noah; Pearce, Ian; Modgil,

doi:10.1308/rcsbull.2020.132

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Belter 35 suggested that 2 years post publication are needed to allow for reliable bibliometric indicators, with some suggestions that 3 years post-publication data are preferable. 25 Citations and altmetrics provide different aspects of impact, and there has been considerable debate about the degree with which they correlate, with Noah et al 36 suggesting that both aspects of metrics are important, but that neither gives the whole picture in terms of impact. It is likely for both that their value depends on factors other than quality and originality, including the age of the references, journal impact factor and funding agencies.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

Abbott

Bethel

Rogers

et al. 2021

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

Abbott

Bethel

Rogers

et al. 2021

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, articles with simple, sensationalist, and declarative titles receive higher AAS, irrespective of their scientific impact. 45,46 The evidence level is also considered a pivotal quality indicator of scientific work. 16 However, most of the top 101 AAS articles were retrospective studies, which has been reported in other altmetric papers such as total joint arthroplasty before.…”

Section: Aas and Bibliometricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Top Ranked 101 Articles in Pediatric Surgical Journals from an Altmetric Perspective

Shu,

Riedel,

Lacher

et al. 2024

Eur J Pediatr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction In the era of scientific digitalization, online media platforms gain increasing popularity to accomplish research output awareness. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) weights these online mentions based on a privy algorithm. We aimed to characterize the top 100 articles with the highest (AAS) published in pediatric surgery journals. Materials and Methods Publications from the six core pediatric surgery journals were retrieved from www.altmetric.com in January 2023 and ranked by their AAS. The top 101 publications were analyzed for their bibliometric measures, study design, and quality as well as online media mentions. Results The top 101 AAS articles were published between 1974 and 2022, preferentially from the United States (64%) and mainly in J Pediatr Surg (73%), followed by J Pediatr Surg Case Rep, Pediatr Surg Int, Semin Pediatr Surg, and Eur J Pediatr Surg. Their AAS ranged between 21 and 389 (median 33) with Twitter/X being mostly responsible for online mentions (n=2,189; 75%). The number of citations in peer reviewed journals ranged between 0 and 358 (median 16) and did not correlate to AAS. Retrospective study design (33%) with low evidence level IV (43%) dominated. Conclusion The Journal of Pediatric Surgery is the main source of high-profile AAS publications in pediatric surgery. The altmetric popularity of articles is predominantly achieved by their propagation via X, irrespective of the study quality and recognition in the scientific community. Thus, active “twitterism” may play the key role to reach high AAS scores.

show abstract

“…Nowadays, many routes outside PubMed are used by authors to track and share new publications in their field; for example, Google scholar or social media are increasingly used. Although there are conflicting reports on whether social media attention can enhance citation rates (some studies report a weak positive correlation, e.g., Costas et al, 2014, Barakat et al, 2018, whereas others found no correlation, e.g., Noah et al, 2020), there is evidence that articles which receive high views/downloads soon after publication are candidates for strong citation (Bommann & Haunschild, 2018). In recognition of the plurality of routes by which readers identify articles of interest and the importance of visibility upon publication, we plan to expand activities to promote journal content in the first months after As examples, we will increase the frequency of topical Calls for Papers and (in addition to promoting single papers in social media or by press release) will make more systematic use of collections of related papers, as they are built up on publication, through a Call or by matched keywords.…”

Section: E D I T O R I a L Physiological Reports: Standing Openly For...mentioning

Altmetrics and citations: the impact of journal publications

Abstract: How researchers can benefit from alternative measures to make their mark.

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

The Top Ranked 101 Articles in Pediatric Surgical Journals from an Altmetric Perspective

Physiological Reports: Standing openly for sound science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About