Using Altmetrics and Social Media to Supplement Impact Factor: Maximizing Your Article's Academic and Societal Impact

Cress, Phaedra E

doi:10.1177/1090820x14542973

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 4 Moreover, the number of peer-reviewed articles reviewing the use of social media in medicine and proposing novel ways to utilize social networking sites has also grown over the past few years. These novel uses include the creation of conference-specific “hashtags” to allow for interaction among conference attendees, 5 the development of new metrics to measure the impact of peer-reviewed publications, 6 and novel modalities to rapidly gauge public opinion regarding a health-related topic. 4 Twitter and mobile technology have also been used as diagnostic aids and emergency modes of communication during natural disasters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Micieli¹,

Tsui²

2015

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of social media in ophthalmology remains largely unknown. Our aim was to evaluate the extent and involvement of ophthalmology journals, professional associations, trade publications, and patient advocacy and fundraising groups on social networking sites.MethodsAn archived list of 107 ophthalmology journals from SCImago, trade publications, professional ophthalmology associations, and patient advocacy organizations were searched for their presence on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Activity and popularity of each account was quantified by using the number of “likes” on Facebook, the number of followers on Twitter, and members on LinkedIn.ResultsOf the 107 journals ranked by SCImago, 21.5% were present on Facebook and 18.7% were present on Twitter. Journal of Community Eye Health was the most popular on Facebook and JAMA Ophthalmology was most popular on Twitter. Among the 133 members of the International Council of Ophthalmology, 17.3% were present on Facebook, 12.8% were present on Twitter, and 7.5% were present on LinkedIn. The most popular on Facebook was the International Council of Ophthalmology, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology was most popular on Twitter and LinkedIn. Patient advocacy organizations were more popular on all sites compared with journals, professional association, and trade publications. Among the top ten most popular pages in each category, patient advocacy groups were most active followed by trade publications, professional associations, and journals.ConclusionPatient advocacy groups lead the way in social networking followed by professional organizations and journals. Although some journals use social media, most have yet to engage its full potential and maximize the number of potential interested individuals.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Micieli¹,

Tsui²

2015

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disadvantages noted in the articles reviewed included that altmetrics calculations have been established by commercial enterprises such as Altmetrics LLC (London, UK) and other competitors,104 and there may be fees levied for their use. The application of these metrics has also not been standardised 96.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesEffective researcher assessment is key to decisions about funding allocations, promotion and tenure. We aimed to identify what is known about methods for assessing researcher achievements, leading to a new composite assessment model.DesignWe systematically reviewed the literature via the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols framework.Data sourcesAll Web of Science databases (including Core Collection, MEDLINE and BIOSIS Citation Index) to the end of 2017.Eligibility criteria(1) English language, (2) published in the last 10 years (2007–2017), (3) full text was available and (4) the article discussed an approach to the assessment of an individual researcher’s achievements.Data extraction and synthesisArticles were allocated among four pairs of reviewers for screening, with each pair randomly assigned 5% of their allocation to review concurrently against inclusion criteria. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa (ĸ). The ĸ statistic showed agreement ranging from moderate to almost perfect (0.4848–0.9039). Following screening, selected articles underwent full-text review and bias was assessed.ResultsFour hundred and seventy-eight articles were included in the final review. Established approaches developed prior to our inclusion period (eg, citations and outputs, h-index and journal impact factor) remained dominant in the literature and in practice. New bibliometric methods and models emerged in the last 10 years including: measures based on PageRank algorithms or ‘altmetric’ data, methods to apply peer judgement and techniques to assign values to publication quantity and quality. Each assessment method tended to prioritise certain aspects of achievement over others.ConclusionsAll metrics and models focus on an element or elements at the expense of others. A new composite design, the Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM), is presented, which supersedes past anachronistic models. The CRAM is modifiable to a range of applications.

show abstract

“…EST, under the hashtag “#meded.” Tools to study analytics on the number of tweets in health care, and those contributing to the chat, have made studying the impact of this easier . Journals such as JCEHP may even choose to use similar tools to demonstrate impact of social media integration, particularly using Twitter, on journal readership …”

Section: Twitter and Evidence‐based Tweetingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Media, Evidence-Based Tweeting, and JCEHP

Djuricich

2014

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical practice and medical journals must adapt to a constantly changing environment, in which social media plays an ever-increasing role. Social media platforms such as Twitter can provide an opportunity to disseminate information in innovative ways. The concept of evidence-based tweeting is introduced, especially as "tweeting the meeting" continues to expand within medical conferences and other venues important for continuing education for health care providers. Future social media strategies for the journal are outlined.

show abstract

Using Altmetrics and Social Media to Supplement Impact Factor: Maximizing Your Article's Academic and Societal Impact

Cited by 32 publications

References 4 publications

Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Comprehensive Researcher Achievement Model (CRAM): a framework for measuring researcher achievement, impact and influence derived from a systematic literature review of metrics and models

Social Media, Evidence-Based Tweeting, and JCEHP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About