Qualitative study of physicians' varied uses of biomedical research in the USA

Maggio, Lauren A.; Moorhead, Laura; Willinsky, John

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012846

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, if a potential reader encounters a tweet to an article, they may choose not to access that article assuming they will either not have access or be asked to pay a fee. Article links leading to paywalls have been associated with user frustration and can condition some users to avoid clicking such links (under the expectation that such links lead to a request to pay) [ 45 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

#MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education

Maggio¹,

Leroux²,

Meyer³

et al. 2018

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionResearchers, funders, and institutions are interested in understanding and quantifying research dissemination and impact, particularly related to communicating with the public. Traditionally, citations have been a primary impact measure; however, citations can be slow to accrue and focus on academic use. Recently altmetrics, which track alternate dissemination forms (e. g., social media), have been suggested as a complement to citation-based metrics. This study examines the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures: journal article citations and access counts.MethodsThe researchers queried Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer for articles published in HPE journals between 2013–2015. They identified 2,486 articles with altmetrics. Data were analyzed using negative binomial and linear regression models.ResultsBlogging was associated with the greatest increase in citations (13% increase), whereas Tweets (1.2%) and Mendeley (1%) were associated with smaller increases. Journal impact factor (JIF) was associated with a 21% increase in citations. Publicly accessible articles were associated with a 19% decrease, but the interactive effect between accessible articles and JIF was associated with a 12% increase. When examining access counts, publicly accessible articles had an increase of 170 access counts whereas blogging was associated with a decrease of 87 accesses.DiscussionThis study suggests that several altmetrics outlets are positively associated with citations, and that public accessibility, holding all other independent variables constant, is positively related to article access. Given the scientific community’s evolving focus on dissemination these findings have implications for stakeholders, providing insight into the factors that may improve citations and access of articles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

#MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education

Maggio¹,

Leroux²,

Meyer³

et al. 2018

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More than 265,000 and 506,000 of these new records were created in 2016 and 2017, respectively. In her email correspondence, Ozga acknowledged a backlog and mentioned that NLM is working toward developing variations of the Medical Text Indexer (MTI) algorithm, such as the MTI First Line Indexing, for semi-automated or fully automated indexing to reduce the backlog of in-process records [13, 34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence-based practice can be inhibited when practitioners are unable to access research behind paywalls. Public and open access can also improve the likelihood of an author’s work being cited and can benefit the teaching, collaboration, and implementation of research [29, 34–36]. Materials do not have to be open access to be included in PMC, and most materials that are currently available are under copyright.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services

Williamson

Minter

2019

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivePubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape.MethodsThe percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.ResultsAlmost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.ConclusionThe differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

show abstract

“…For example, a system of access icons was recently rolled out to help Wikipedia editors visually indicate if the full text of a citation is publicly accessible [ 35 ]. This indication of accessibility may increase referrals by encouraging users, such as physicians, that have admitted reluctance to click citation links due to the expectation of facing a paywall [ 36 ]. Furthermore, as public access to research increases [ 37 ], editors may more readily obtain and cite literature.…”

Section: Discussion / Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia is a gateway to knowledge. However, the extent to which this gateway ends at Wikipedia or continues via supporting citations is unknown. Wikipedia’s gateway functionality has implications for information design and education, notably in medicine. This study aims to establish benchmarks for the relative distribution and referral (click) rate of citations—as indicated by presence of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI)—from Wikipedia, with a focus on medical citations. DOIs referred from the English Wikipedia in August 2016 were obtained from Crossref.org. Next, based on a DOI’s presence on a WikiProject Medicine page, all DOIs in Wikipedia were categorized as medical (WP:MED) or non-medical (non-WP:MED). Using this categorization, referred DOIs were classified as WP:MED, non-WP:MED, or BOTH, meaning the DOI may have been referred from either category. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Out of 5.2 million Wikipedia pages, 4.42% (n = 229,857) included at least one DOI. 68,870 were identified as WP:MED, with 22.14% (n = 15,250) featuring one or more DOIs. WP:MED pages featured on average 8.88 DOI citations per page, whereas non-WP:MED pages had on average 4.28 DOI citations. For DOIs only on WP:MED pages, a DOI was referred every 2,283 pageviews and for non-WP:MED pages every 2,467 pageviews. DOIs from BOTH pages accounted for 12% (n = 58,475). The referral of DOI citations found in BOTH could not be assigned to WP:MED or non-WP:MED, as the page from which the referral was made was not provided with the data. While these results cannot provide evidence of greater citation referral from WP:MED than non-WP:MED, they do provide benchmarks to assess strategies for changing referral patterns. These changes might include editors adopting new methods for designing and presenting citations or the introduction of teaching strategies that address the value of consulting citations as a tool for extending learning.

show abstract

Qualitative study of physicians' varied uses of biomedical research in the USA

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

#MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education

#MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services

Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About