What gives a stroke publication impact? Assessing traditional and alternative metrics of scientific impact for papers published in the journal Stroke

Background: The ‘impact’ of a scientific paper is a measure of influence in its field. In recent years, traditional, citation-based measures of impact have been complemented by Altmetrics, which quantify outputs including social media footprint. As authors and research institutions seek to increase their visibility both within and beyond the academic community, it is important to identify and compare the determinants of traditional and alternative metrics. We explored this using Stroke – a leading journal in its field. Methods: We described the impact of original research papers published in Stroke (2015-2016) using citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetrics). Using these two metrics as our outcomes, we assessed univariable and multivariable associations with 21 plausibly relevant publication features. We set the significance threshold at p<0.01. Results: Across 911 papers published in Stroke, there was an average citation count of 21.60 (±17.40) and Altmetric score of 17.99 (±47.37). The two impact measures were weakly correlated (r=0.15, p<0.001). Citations were independently associated with five publication features at a significance level of p<0.01: Time Since Publication (beta=0.87), Number of Authors (beta=0.22), Publication Type (beta=6.76), Number of Previous Publications (beta=0.01) and Editorial (beta=9.45). For Altmetrics, we observed a trend for independent associations with: Time Since Publication (beta=-0.25, p=0.02), Number of References (beta=0.32, p=0.02) and Country of Affiliation (beta=8.59, p=0.01). Our models explained 21% and 3% of variance in citations and Altmetrics, respectively. Conclusion: Papers published in Stroke have impact. Certain aspects of content and format may contribute to impact, but these differ for traditional measures and Altmetrics, and explain only a very modest proportion of variance in the latter. Citation counts and Altmetrics seem to represent different constructs and, therefore, should be used in conjunction to allow a more comprehensive assessment of publication impact.

Clarivate listed nursing journals in 2020: what they publish and how they measure use of social media

Objectives To investigate what the most common types of articles that nursing journals purport to publish are and what they actually publish. And to investigate the extent to which academic nursing journals listed by Clarivate track alternative metrics. Methods Journals included in the nursing Journal Citation Report (JCR) journal category in 2019 described as nursing were identified and considered suitable for inclusion in the analysis. Instructions for authors were reviewed online and mention of each type of article is identified. The tables of contents of each issue of each journal published during 2019 were examined and the types of articles published were extracted to a spreadsheet into permitted article types and published articles. Likewise, the use of alternative metrics by each journal was extracted to a spreadsheet. Pearson's and Spearman's correlation analysis was applied to investigate the relationship between articles permitted and articles published. Results In the 2020 JCR, 123 journals were listed. The most common article type permitted was original research (n = 117), followed by review papers (n = 116), and discussion papers (n = 63). Original research (n = 7045); review papers (n = 1268); discussion papers (n = 1225); editorials (n = 793) and commentaries (n = 776) were the most commonly published categories of the article. Of journals examined, 108 (96.8%) tracked mentions on social media and the Altmetric score was most commonly used (75%). There was a strong correlation (r = 0.73; P = 0.002) between the numbers of articles permitted and published and a strong correlation (ρ = 0.86; P < 0.001) in terms of the rankings of the permitted and published articles. Conclusions There is a relationship between the most frequently permitted article types and those published, especially for the most frequent categories of both. Original articles, review papers, and discussion papers are the backbone of academic publishing in nursing with original articles vastly outweighing review and discussion papers. Most Clarivate listed journals now use some method of tracking alternative metrics indicating how seriously publishers take their social media profiles.

After Vanity Metrics

‘Vanity metrics,’ as they are critically termed, measure the performative work an individual carries out on social media. Posting on social media and subsequently displaying and maintaining like, view, and follow counts have been critiqued as both distracting modes of engagement as well as performance in a ‘success theater’. The notion of vanity metrics additionally implies how one may consider reworking the metrics. In an undertaking he calls ‘critical analytics’, the author proposes an alternative metrics project akin to altmetrics in science but utilized instead to measure actor activity around social issues and causes in social media. Critical analytics are means to analyse dominant voice, concern, commitment, positioning, and alignment of actors using social media to work on social issues and causes, seeking to contribute a conceptual and applied research agenda to orient the study of social media use and activity metrics.

ALTERNATIVE NUMERAIRES FOR MEASURING WELFARE CHANGES: REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION STUDIES

This study examines numeraire or an account unit that measures household welfare changes. Although money metric usually determines budget constraint, textbook explanations of the alternative metrics are limited. Therefore, the study aimed to fill the existing gap by systematically and qualitatively analysing previously published articles on environmental valuation in developing countries. The results showed the existence of alternative numeraires in working time, commodities, and financing. The alternative metrics are useful in the valuation of environmental goods and services in developing countries, especially those involving poor respondents and underdeveloped monetary transactions. The nonmonetary payments reduce zero bids due to the inability of subsistence people to pay in cash and help the poor express their true environmental values.

715 The Importance of Social Media to The Academic Surgical Literature: Relationship Between Twitter Activity and Readership Metrics

Aim Social media (SoMe) has an increasing role within professional surgical practice, including the publishing and engagement of academic literature. This study aims to analyse the relationship between social media use and traditional and alternative metrics amongst academic surgical journals. Method Journals were identified through the InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019, and their impact factor (IF), h-index and CiteScore were noted. Social media platforms were examined, and Twitter activity interrogated between 1st January- 31st December 2019. Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score and an aggregated Altmetric score were also calculated for each journal. Statistical analysis was carried out to look at the correlation between traditional metrics, Twitter activity and altmetrics. Results Journals with higher IF were more likely to use a greater number of SoMe platforms (R2=0.648; p &lt; 0.0001). Journals with dedicated Twitter profiles had a higher IF than journals without (median, 2.96 vs 1.88; MWU=390; p &lt; 0.001) however over a one-year period (2018-2019) having a twitter presence did not alter IF (MWU=744.5; p = 0.885). Increased Twitter activity was positively correlated with IF. Longitudinal analysis over six years suggested cumulative tweets correlated with an increased IF (R2=0.324, p = 0.004). Novel alternative measures including HSG score (R2=0.472, p = 0.005) and Altmetric score (R2=0.779, p = 0.001) positively correlated with IF. Conclusions Higher IF is associated with SoMe presence and activity, particularly on Twitter, with long term activity being of particular importance. Modern alternative metrics correlate with IF. This relationship is complex and future studies should look to understand this further.

Is Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Coming out on Top? A Comparison with Activity-Based Costing in the Health Field

The cost of health is a recurrent topic that has generated much research, as it affects all of society. Both public and private agents need to know the real cost of treatments, services, and products for decision-making. This article aims to compare the use and research impact of two cost systems widely used in health: ABC and TDABC, which is an evolution of ABC. For doing so, a bibliometric review in Scopus and Medline was carried out encompassing the years 2009–2019. The results show a great increase in publications using TDABC, while publications on ABC stabilized. On the other hand, the TDABC articles presented higher research impacts in traditional and alternative metrics. Articles on TDABC are more frequently cited, published in better journals, and more visible in academic social networks. The findings suggest that scholars and practitioners should focus on TDABC rather than ABC for addressing cost in health for its simplicity, projection, and research opportunities.

Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?

Six Sigma has been widely used in the health field for process or quality improvement, constituting a quite profusely investigated topic. This paper aims at exploring why some studies have more academic and societal impact, attracting more attention from academics and health professionals. Academic and societal impact was addressed using traditional academic metrics and alternative metrics, often known as altmetrics. We conducted a systematic search following the PRISMA statement through three well-known databases, and identified 212 papers published during 1998–2019. We conducted zero-inflated negative binomial regressions to explore the influence of bibliometric and content determinants on traditional academic and alternative metrics. We observe that the factors influencing alternative metrics are more varied and difficult to apprehend than those explaining traditional impact metrics. We also conclude that, independently of how the impact is measured, the paper’s content, rather than bibliometric characteristics, better explains its impact. In the specific case of research on Six Sigma applied to health, the papers with more impact address process improvement focusing on time and waste reduction. This study sheds light on the aspects that better explain publications’ impact in the field of Six Sigma application in health, either from an academic or a societal point of view.

The Use of Twitter by Medical Journals: Systematic Review of the Literature

Background Medical journals use Twitter to engage and disseminate their research articles and implement a range of strategies to maximize reach and impact. Objective This study aims to systematically review the literature to synthesize and describe the different Twitter strategies used by medical journals and their effectiveness on journal impact and readership metrics. Methods A systematic search of the literature before February 2020 in four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Articles were reviewed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Results The search identified 44 original research studies that evaluated Twitter strategies implemented by medical journals and analyzed the relationship between Twitter metrics and alternative and citation-based metrics. The key findings suggest that promoting publications on Twitter improves citation-based and alternative metrics for academic medical journals. Moreover, implementing different Twitter strategies maximizes the amount of attention that publications and journals receive. The four key Twitter strategies implemented by many medical journals are tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. Each strategy was successful in promoting the publications. However, different metrics were used to measure success. Conclusions Four key Twitter strategies are implemented by medical journals: tweeting the title and link of the article, infographics, podcasts, and hosting monthly internet-based journal clubs. In this review, each strategy was successful in promoting publications but used different metrics to measure success. Thus, it is difficult to conclude which strategy is most effective. In addition, the four strategies have different costs and effects on dissemination and readership. We recommend that journals and researchers incorporate a combination of Twitter strategies to maximize research impact and capture audiences with a variety of learning methods.

Overview of Development and Recent Trends in Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation

This paper is an overview of bibliometrics, a subfield of library and information science. It briefly explains what bibliometrics is and why it is important in research evaluation and impact analysis. It summarizes the latest development and trends over the past decade. Three major trends are identified and discussed. They are alternative metrics, responsible use of bibliometrics and responsible research evaluation movement, and application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning in bibliometrics practice.