scholarly journals Twitter promotion predicts citation rates of cardiovascular articles: a preliminary analysis from the ESC Journals Randomized Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (34) ◽  
pp. 3222-3225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Ladeiras-Lopes ◽  
Sarah Clarke ◽  
Rafael Vidal-Perez ◽  
Michael Alexander ◽  
Thomas F Lüscher
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Medicine ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Social Media Strategy

Abstract Aims The association between the dissemination of scientific articles on Twitter and online visibility (including Altmetric score) is still controversial and the impact on citation rates has never been addressed for cardiovascular medicine journals. Methods and Results The ESC Journals Study randomized 696 papers published in the ESC Journals family (March 2018–May 2019) for promotion on Twitter or to a control arm (with no active tweeting from ESC channels) and aimed to assess if Twitter promotion was associated with an increase in citation rate (primary endpoint) and Altmetric score. This is a preliminary analysis of 536 articles (77% of total) published until December 2018 (therefore, papers published at least 6 months before collecting citation and Altmetrics data). In the analysis of the primary endpoint, Twitter promotion of articles was associated with a 1.43 (95% confidence interval 1.29–1.58) higher rate of citations, and this effect was independent of the type of article. Both Altmetric score and number of users tweeting were positively associated with the number of citations in both arms, with evidence of a stronger association (interaction) in the Twitter arm. Conclusion Therefore, a social media strategy of Twitter promotion for cardiovascular medicine papers seems to be associated with increased online visibility and higher number of citations. The final analysis will include 696 papers and 2-year scientific citation rate and is estimated to be concluded in March 2021.

Social Response to the FDA Authorization of Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs)

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jungmi Jun
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Preliminary Analysis ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Semantic Networks ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Tobacco Products ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sales of heated tobacco products (HTPs) on April 30, 2019. In this paper, I provide a preliminary analysis of social media conversations regarding HTPs and the FDA authorization in the first 60 days. Methods: I examined 574 tweets regarding HTPs to assess tweet characteristics and semantic networks of HTPs. Results: Tweets were more likely to be neutral or anti-HTPs than pro-HTPs regardless of the author type (except for tobacco industry) or genre of the post. There was a small gap (6.4%) between the proportion of pro-HTPs and anti-HTPs among personal tweets. The proportion of pro-HTPs was larger in tweets posted by men (vs women and no sex specified) and from rural areas (vs urban). Nearly one-third of the sample mentioned cigarettes or e-cigarettes, even though the size of posts making claims on inferiority/superiority of HTPs was small. Conclusions: Social media conversations on risks of HTPs as well as surveillance on young consumer target marketing is occurring, and it will be important to assess the impact of tobacco companies' launch of HTP sales in the US to assess public perceptions on HTPs. Continuing surveillance of HTP marketing and risk perceptions will inform tobacco regulations.

scholarly journals Making sense of the infodemic – A bibliometric analysis of publications on COVID-19 in trauma and orthopedics

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
Srinivas B. S. Kambhampati ◽  
Raju Vaishya ◽  
Sravya Teja Paleti ◽  
Vikas Khanduja
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an explosion of publications to report, understand, further research, and manage this condition. While publications are analyzing the bibliometrics on this condition, there are none available specifically for the impact of COVID-19 on trauma and orthopedics. The aim of this study, therefore, was to perform a bibliometric analysis on COVID-19 and trauma and orthopedics to assess its impact on the specialty. A search for articles on COVID-19 concerning trauma and orthopedics, with the keywords: “COVID-19, New coronavirus, SARS-Cov-2, Orthopedic*, trauma, bone, and joint” were performed on the June 19, 2020, using SCOPUS and PUBMED and this resulted in 272 and 887 articles, respectively. Later, on the same day, we searched for orthopedic journals exclusively and extracted 258 articles from 58 journals. Furthermore, we analyzed the Altmetric data through the dimensions website to find the most popular articles on social media on this topic. After analyzing the data, we found that review articles were the most commonly published articles. The leading journal publishing this content were; The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) American (35), followed by the Journal of Arthroplasty (22). There were 6936 authors involved in publishing 887 articles in 2020. Most articles were published by Vaishya (5) followed by Liang (5), and Iyengar (5). Analysis of Altmetric data showed a total number of citations of 5000 with a mean of 1.98. MedRxiv with 781 publications and 1616 citations was the preprint server with the most publications on dimensions. We studied details of the article with maximum AAS score of 25226 is with 840 citations. We have listed useful protocols from the search and top five cited articles from each search strategy. Publications on COVID-19 commenced from the 9th week of this year and have increased exponentially. Review articles (PubMed) and articles (Scopus) were the most published. The JBJS (Am) and J Arthroplasty have published the maximum number of articles on COVID-19. We found that for a fast evolving condition and for the short term, altmetrics may be better indicators than citations to follow directions of research. Publications with a low number of citations could have immense social media attention. This study should help in quantifying the value of research and publications related to orthopedics and trauma aspects of COVID-19 and therefore help the readers, researchers, and health-care providers to use this information effectively.

scholarly journals Social Media and Academic Impact: Do Early Tweets Correlate With Future Citations?

2021 ◽  
pp. 014556132110421
Author(s):  
Nilan G. Vaghjiani ◽  
Vatsal Lal ◽  
Nima Vahidi ◽  
Ali Ebadi ◽  
Matthew Carli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Academic Impact ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Number Of Citations

Objective: Determine whether social media platforms can influence article impact as measured by citations. Methods: Cross-sectional study that analyzed articles published in the top 10 otolaryngology journals by Eigenfactor score in January 2015. Total accumulated Twitter mentions and citations were recorded in 2021. The main outcomes examined the difference in citations, tweets, article types, and author counts accumulated over a 5-year period for all articles that were either tweeted or nontweeted. Results: A total of 3094 articles were included for analysis. The average article was cited 11.2 ± 13.2 times and tweeted 2.10 ± 4.0 times. Sixty-four percent of the articles had at least one tweet. Over the study period, there was a statistically significant difference in mean number of citations between tweeted articles (12.1 ± 15.0) versus nontweeted articles (9.6 ± 10.5) citations, representing a 26% difference ( P < .001). Review articles had the highest mean citations (19.4 ± 23.4) while editorials had the lowest mean citations (2.8 ± 6.9). Tweets peaked in the year of publication, but citations continued to rise in the subsequent years. Tweeted articles’ peak citation rate change was +1.27 mean citations per year, compared to +0.99 mean citations per year in nontweeted articles. The mean author count in tweeted articles (5.40 ± 3.1) was not significantly different than the mean author count in nontweeted articles (5.19 ± 2.65, P = .0794). Conclusion: These data suggest a moderate correlation between tweets and article citations, but a clear difference in the number of citations in articles tweeted versus those with no tweets. Thus, dissemination of knowledge may be impacted by social medial platforms such as Twitter.

Design and accrual of S1417CD: Development of a prospective financial impact assessment tool in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6652-TPS6652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Shankaran ◽  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Amy K. Darke ◽  
Jennifer Marie Suga ◽  
James Lloyd Wade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Financial Outcomes ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Credit Data ◽  
The Impact

TPS6652 Background: Few studies have assessed the financial impact of cancer diagnosis (dx) in diverse patients (pts) and caregivers (cgs) using objective and standard financial measures. S1417CD, led by the SWOG Cancer Research Network, is the first prospective cohort study assessing financial outcomes to be conducted in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We present our experience with design and accrual. Methods: Pts age ≥ 18 within 120 days of mCRC dx were considered eligible and asked to identify a caregiver (cg) who could participate concurrently. The primary endpoint is incidence of treatment-related financial hardship, defined as ≥ 1 of the following: debt accrual, selling/refinancing home, ≥ 20% income decline, or borrowing money. Measures include 1) pt and cg surveys (baseline (BL), 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (mo)) assessing out-of-pocket spending, financial impacts, cg burden, and quality of life and 2) pt credit reports (BL, 6, and 12 mo). Linkage to records from TransUnion, a national credit agency, required pt social security number (SSN) and processes for batched credit report transfer via secure web portal. The accrual goal was n = 374 pts in 3 years. The study activated on Apr 1, 2016 and closed on Feb 1, 2019 after reaching its accrual goal. A total of 380 pts (median age 59.7 years) and 155 cgs enrolled (41% cg participation). Enrollment steadily increased during the study period; 56% enrolled in the last 12 mo. Credit data were not obtainable for 76 (20%) pts due to early death, lack of credit, or inability to match records. S1417CD, the first cooperative group led study assessing financial outcomes in the community setting, completed enrollment faster than anticipated. Required SSN collection was not a barrier to enrollment, which improved as sites became familiar with data security measures. Robust accrual to S1417CD demonstrates pts’ and cgs’ desire to improve understanding of financial toxicity and its solutions. Follow-up will conclude in 12 mo with results to follow. SWOG plans to launch a randomized study (S1912) assessing the impact of financial navigation on household finances, using credit data for primary endpoint assessment. Clinical Trials Registry Identifier NCI-2015-01885. Clinical trial information: NCT02728804.

A phase III randomized study of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, for active ankylosing spondylitis

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201088
Author(s):  
Peter C. Taylor ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
Shannon McCue ◽  
Sue Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Upper Respiratory Infection ◽  
Phosphodiesterase 4 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitor

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT01583374) randomized patients with active AS (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily for 24 weeks, followed by a long-term extension phase (up to 5 years). The primary endpoint was assessment of the SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 (ASAS 20) response at Week 16. The impact of treatment on radiographic outcomes after 104 weeks was assessed using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). Results In total, 490 patients with active AS were randomized in the study (placebo: n=164; apremilast 20 mg twice daily: n=163; apremilast 30 mg twice daily: n=163). The primary endpoint of ASAS 20 response at Week 16 was not met (placebo: 37%; apremilast 20 mg twice daily: 35%; apremilast 30 mg twice daily: 33%; p=0.44 vs placebo). At Week 104, mean (SD) changes from baseline in mSASSS were 0.83 (3.6), 0.98 (2.2), and 0.57 (1.9) in patients initially randomized to placebo, apremilast 20 mg twice daily, and apremilast 30 mg twice daily, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events through Week 104 were diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, and nausea. Conclusion No clinical benefit was observed with apremilast treatment in patients with active AS. The safety and tolerability of apremilast were consistent with its known profile.

scholarly journals Open Access Works are as Reliable as Other Publishing Models at Retracting Flawed Articles from the Biomedical Literature

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
American Society ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

A Review of: Peterson, G.M. (2013). Characteristics of retracted open access biomedical literature: a bibliographic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(12), 2428-2436. doi: 10.1002/asi.22944 Abstract Objective – To investigate whether the rate of retracted articles and citation rates post-retraction in the biomedical literature are comparable across open access, free-to-access, or pay-to-access journals. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – 160 retracted papers published between 1st January 2001 and 31st December 2010. Methods – For the retracted papers, 100 records were retrieved from the PubMed database and 100 records from the PubMed Central (PMC) open access subset. Records were selected at random, based on the PubMed identifier. Each article was assigned a number based on its accessibility using the specific criteria. Articles published in the PMC open access subset were assigned a 2; articles retrieved from PubMed that were freely accessible, but did not meet the criteria for open access were assigned a 1; and articles retrieved through PubMed which were pay-to-access were assigned a 0. This allowed articles to be grouped and compared by accessibility. Citation information was collected primarily from the Science Citation Index. Articles for which no citation information was available, and those with a lifetime citation of 0 (or 1 where the citation came from the retraction statement) were excluded, leaving 160 articles for analysis. Information on the impact factor of the journals was retrieved and the analysis was performed twice; first with the entire set, and second after excluding articles published in journals with an impact factor of 10 or above (14% of the total). The average number of citations per month was used to compare citation rates, and the percentage change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was calculated. Information was also collected on the time between the date the original article was published and the date of retraction, and the availability of information on the reason for the retraction. Main results – The overall rate of retracted articles in the PMC open access subset compared with the wider PubMed dataset was similar (0.049% and 0.028% respectively). In the group with an accessibility rating of 0, the change in citation rate pre- and post-retraction was -41%. For the group with an accessibility rating of 1, the change was -47% and in those with a rating of 2, the change in citation rate was -59%. Removing articles published in high impact factor journals did not change the results significantly. Retractions were issued more slowly for free access papers compared with open or fee-based articles. The bibliographic records for open access articles disclosed details of the reason for the retraction more frequently than free, non-open papers (91% compared to 53%). Conclusion – Open access literature is similar in its rate of retraction and the reduction in post-retraction citations to the rest of the biomedical literature, and is actually more reliable at reporting the reason for the retraction.

Measuring the impact of COVID-19 papers on the social web: an altmetric study

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Metwaly Ali Mohamed Edakar ◽  
Ahmed Maher Khafaga Shehata
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The rapid spread and severity of the coronavirus (COVID-19) virus have prompted a spate of scholarly research that deals with the pandemic. The purpose of this study is to measure and assess the coverage of COVID-19 research on social media and the engagement of readers with COVID-19 research on social media outlets. Design/methodology/approach An altmetric analysis was carried out in three phases. The first focused on retrieving all papers related to COVID-19. Phase two of the research aimed to measure the presence of the retrieved papers on social media using altmetric application programming interface (API). The third phase aimed to measure Mendeley readership categories using Mendeley API to extract data of readership from Mendeley for each paper. Findings The study suggests that while social media platforms do not give accurate measures of the impact as given by citations, they can be used to portray the social impact of the scholarly outputs and indicate the effectiveness of COVID-19 research. The results confirm a positive correlation between the number of citations to articles in databases such as Scopus and the number of views on social media sites such as Mendeley and Twitter. The results of the current study indicated that social media could serve as an indicator of the number of citations of scientific articles. Research limitations/implications This study’s limitation is that the studied articles’ altmetrics performance was examined using only one of the altmetrics data service providers (altmetrics database). Hence, future research should explore altmetrics on the topic using more than one platform. Another limitation of the current research is that it did not explore the academic social media role in spreading fake information as the scope was limited to scholarly outputs on social media. The practical contribution of the current research is that it informs scholars about the impact of social media platforms on the spread and visibility of COVID-19 research. Also, it can help researchers better understand the importance of published COVID-19 research using social media. Originality/value This paper provides insight into the impact of COVID-19 research on social media. The paper helps to provide an understanding of how people engage with health research using altmetrics scores, which can be used as indicators of research performance.

Evaluating the impact of research using the altmetrics approach (case study: the field of scientometrics)

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4/5) ◽  
pp. 241-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehri Sedighi
Keyword(s):  
Social Networks ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Social Impact ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Research Population ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This paper aims to assess the impact of research in the field of scientometrics by using the altmetrics (social media metrics) approach. Design/methodology/approach This is an applied study which uses scientometric and altmetrics methods. The research population consists of the studies and their citations published in the two core journals (Scientometrics and Journal of Informetrics) in a period of five years (included 1,738 papers and 11,504 citations). Collecting and extracting the studies directly was carried from Springer and ScienceDirect databases. The Altmetric Explorer, a service provided by Altmetric.com, was used to collect data on studies from various sources (www.altmetric.com/). The research studies with the altmetric scores were identified (included 830 papers). The altmetric scores represent the quantity and quality of attention that the study has received on social media. The association between altmetric scores and citation indicators was investigated by using correlation tests. Findings The findings indicated a significant, positive and weak statistical relationship between the number of citations of the studies published in the field of scientometrics and the altmetric scores of these studies, as well as the number of readers of these studies in the two social networks (Mendeley and Citeulike) with the number of their citations. In this study, there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of citations of the studies and the number of readers on Twitter. In sum, the above findings suggest that some social networks and their indices can be representations of the impact of scientific papers, similar citations. However, owing to the weakness of the correlation coefficients, the replacement of these two categories of indicators is not recommended, but it is possible to use the altmetrics indicators as complementary scientometrics indicators in evaluating the impact of research. Originality/value Investigating the impact of research on social media can reflect the social impact of research and can also be useful for libraries, universities, and research organizations in planning, budgeting, and resource allocation processes.

scholarly journals Predictors of 5-Year Citation Rate in the Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamran Movassagi ◽  
Kyle N. Kunze ◽  
Edward C. Beck ◽  
Michael C. Fu ◽  
Shane J. Nho
Keyword(s):  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Citation Rate ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Interest Level ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Citations

Background: The citation rate of a research published article is an indicator of its quality and impact and contributes to the journal’s impact factor. Within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, predictors of citation rates have not been previously described. Purpose: To identify characteristics of published articles that predict 5-year citation rates of studies in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Research articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 2012 were analyzed. Extracted characteristics of published articles included journal, author number, origin of study, first author degree, subject of study, study type, sample size, number of references and institutions, conflicts of interest, level of evidence, and 5-year citation rates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years. Results: A total of 825 published articles ( AJSM, n = 313; Arthroscopy, n = 173; KSSTA, n = 339) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of 5-year citations was 23.2 (95% CI, 21.6-24.9; range, 1.0-260.0). AJSM had a significantly greater citation rate (32.4) than Arthroscopy (21.7) and KSSTA (15.2) ( P < .001 for both). Arthroscopy had a greater citation rate than KSSTA ( P = .008). Independent predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years were published articles in AJSM (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% CI, 2.81-9.52; P < .0001), published articles of North American origin (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.58; P = .002), and published articles regarding the hip (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.08-6.67; P = .035). Conclusion: Published articles in AJSM, those from North America, and those examining the hip were independent predictors of greater citation rates at 5 years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document