Scholarly Tweets: Measuring Research Impact via Altmetrics

Featherstone, Robin

doi:10.5596/c14-015

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the AAS suggests, social media impact is even more multidimensional, as it is linked to various web-based tools that a particular researcher can use. This researcher is also embedded in a unit within an institution [ 88 ]; the researcher’s work is then published in a journal, which has a specific and independent impact (IF, citations, and Altmetrics). The evaluation of the researcher’s scientific impact on social media should then take into account various dimensions and indicators and be aligned with more qualitative evaluation on other domains of the RIF [ 4 ], which includes policy, service, and societal impacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact. Objective The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis. Results Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research. Conclusions We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measuring the impact of pharmacoepidemiologic research using altmetrics: A case study of aCNODESdrug‐safety article

Gamble

Traynor

Gruzd

et al. 2018

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with traditional citation-based metrics, altmetrics take a more holistic view of research impact, attempting to capture the activity and engagement of both scholarly and nonscholarly communities. Despite the limited theoretical underpinnings, possible commercial influence, potential for gaming and manipulation, and numerous data quality-related issues, altmetrics are promising as a supplement to more traditional citation-based metrics because they can ingest and process a larger set of data points related to the flow and reach of scholarly communication from an expanded pool of stakeholders. Unlike citation-based metrics, altmetrics are not inherently rooted in the research publication process, which includes peer review; it is unclear to what extent they should be used for research evaluation.

show abstract