advertising
-
1
Cooper ID: Bibliometrics basics. J Med Libr Assoc 103: 217, 2015.
-
2
Patthi B, Prasad M, Gupta R, et al: Altmetrics—a collated adjunct beyond citations for scholarly impact: a systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 11: ZE16, 2017.
-
3
Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, et al: Altmetrics: a manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed January 1, 2021.
-
4
Altmetric: The donut and altmetric attention score. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com/about-our-data/the-donut-and-score/. Accessed November 8, 2021,
-
5
Powell AGMT, Bevan V, Brown C, et al: Altmetric versus bibliometric perspective regarding publication impact and force. World J Surg 42: 2745, 2018.
-
6
Hughes H, Hughes A, Murphy C: The use of Twitter by the trauma and orthopaedic surgery journals: Twitter activity, impact factor, and alternative metrics (published correction appears in Cureus 2018 June 15;10[6]:c13). Cureus 9: e1931, 2017.
-
7
Kim JE, Kim Y, Park KM, et al: Top 100 publications as measured by altmetrics in the field of central nervous system inflammatory demyelinating disease. Biomed Res Int 2019: 3748091, 2019.
-
8
Maggio LA, Leroux TC, Meyer HS, et al: #MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education. Perspect Med Educ 7: 239, 2018.
-
9
Schimanski LA, Alperin JP: The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: past, present, and future. F1000Res 7: 1605, 2018.
-
10
Council of Canadian Academies. Informing research choices: indicators and judgment: the expert panel on science performance and research funding. Available at: https://www.scienceadvice.ca/reports/informing-research-choices-indicators-and-judgment/. Accessed January 1, 2021.
-
11
Leydesdorff L, Wouters P, Bornmann L: Professional and citizen bibliometrics: complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—a state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics 109: 2129, 2016.
-
12
Altmetric Bookmarklet. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com/solutions/free-tools/bookmarklet/. Accessed January 1, 2021.
-
13
Warren VT, Patel B, Boyd CJ: Analyzing the relationship between Altmetric score and literature citations in the implantology literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 22: 54, 2020.
-
14
Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont I, et al: Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology 123: 28, 2019.
-
15
Chang J, Desai N, Gosain A: Correlation between Altmetric score and citations in pediatric surgery core journals. J Surg Res 243: 52, 2019.
Association Between Altmetrics and Traditional Bibliometrics in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery
Search for other papers by Dominick J. Casciato in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jana Olivová in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bibi N. Singh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: As the dissemination of scientific knowledge pervades social media, appraising impact with traditional bibliometrics led to the creation of alternative metrics, termed altmetrics. Lacking existent foot and ankle surgery literature altmetric analysis, we analyzed the 10 most-cited articles in the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) and The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (JFAS) in 2013 and 2017.
Methods: Citation count, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), Mendeley Reads, and professional society–affiliated Twitter ages were collected and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation coefficient identified relationships between traditional and nontraditional metrics.
Results: The 40 articles showed a high median and large range in total citations for JAPMA (13.5 [range, 5–27]) and JFAS (28 [range, 5–69]). Media AAS Mendeley Reads also showed a high median with wide range for both JAPMA (32.5 [range, 0–135]) and JFAS (25 [range, 0–113)]. No significant correlation between total citations and AAS was seen in 2013 (r = –0.205; P = .388) or 2017 (r = –0.029; P = .903). The correlation between total citation count and Mendeley reads was significant in 2017 (r = 0.646; P = .002) but not in 2013 (r = –0.078; P = .744). Although cumulative AAS increased from 2013 to 2017 by 68.75%, with Twitter contributing most to both periods, there existed no significant correlation with Twitter age and the correlation coefficient between AAS and total citations (r = 0.655; P = .173).
Conclusions: The results of this investigation show the utility and predictivity of alternative metrics in complementing traditional bibliometrics and encourage the promotion of publications through journal-specific social media.
advertising
