Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Researchers, funders, and institutions are interested in understanding and quantifying research dissemination and impact, particularly related to communicating with the public. Traditionally, citations have been a primary impact measure; however, citations can be slow to accrue and focus on academic use. Recently altmetrics, which track alternate dissemination forms (e. g., social media), have been suggested as a complement to citation-based metrics. This study examines the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures: journal article citations and access counts.
The researchers queried Web of Science and Altmetric Explorer for articles published in HPE journals between 2013–2015. They identified 2,486 articles with altmetrics. Data were analyzed using negative binomial and linear regression models.
Blogging was associated with the greatest increase in citations (13% increase), whereas Tweets (1.2%) and Mendeley (1%) were associated with smaller increases. Journal impact factor (JIF) was associated with a 21% increase in citations. Publicly accessible articles were associated with a 19% decrease, but the interactive effect between accessible articles and JIF was associated with a 12% increase. When examining access counts, publicly accessible articles had an increase of 170 access counts whereas blogging was associated with a decrease of 87 accesses.
This study suggests that several altmetrics outlets are positively associated with citations, and that public accessibility, holding all other independent variables constant, is positively related to article access. Given the scientific community’s evolving focus on dissemination these findings have implications for stakeholders, providing insight into the factors that may improve citations and access of articles.
Willinsky JM. The access principle: the case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1999.
National Institutes of Health. Impact of NIH research. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2017. Available from: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/impact-nih-research.
National institutes of Health. NIH public access policy. Bethesda: National Insitutes of Health; 2009. Available from: https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.html.
National Institutes of Health. Plan for increasing access to scientific publications and digital scientific data from NIH funded scientific research. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2015. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/NIH-Public-Access-Plan.pdf.
Registry of Open Access Repository. Registry of open access repository mandates and policies. Southhampton: ROARMAP Database; 2017. Available from: https://roarmap.eprints.org/.
Merton RK. The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis. 1988;79:620–1. CrossRef
Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? an overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J Informetr. 2014;8:895–903. CrossRef
Fenner M. What can article-level metrics do for you? Plos Biol. 2013;11:e1001687. CrossRef
Van Eck NJ, Waltman L, van Raan AF, Klautz RJ, Peul WC. Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared with basic research. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e62395. CrossRef
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. San Franisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). 2012. http://www.ascb.org/dora/. Accessed: 31 May 2018.
Eysenbach G. Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e123. CrossRef
Shanta A, Pradhan A, Sharma S. Impact factor of a scientific journal: is it a measure of quality of research? J Med Phys. 2013;38:155. CrossRef
Dinsmore A, Allen L, Dolby K. Alternative perspectives on impact: the potential of ALms and altmetrics to inform funders about research impact. Plos Biol. 2014;12:e1002003. CrossRef
Meyer H, Artino A, Maggio L. Tracking the scholarly conversation in health professions education: an introduction to altmetrics. Acad Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001872.
Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. Altmetrics: a manifesto. 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed: 31 May 2018.
Maggio L, Meyer H, Artino A. Beyond citation rates: real-time impact analysis of health professions education research via altmetrics. Acad Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001897.
Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66:2003–19. CrossRef
Cabrera D, Vartabedian BS, Spinner RJ, Jordan BL, Aase LA, Timimi FK. More than likes and tweets: creating social media portfolios for academic promotion and tenure. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9:421–5. CrossRef
Peoples BK, Midway SR, Sackett D, Lynch A, Cooney PB. Twitter predicts citation rates of ecological research. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e166570. CrossRef
Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V. Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:656–69. CrossRef
Swanwick T. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Amath A, Ambacher K, Leddy JJ, Wood TJ, Ramnanan CJ. Comparing alternative and traditional dissemination metrics in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51(41):935. CrossRef
Andersen JP, Haustein S. Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers. 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00154. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social media use in medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88:893–901. CrossRef
Lee K, Whelan JS, Tannery NH, Kanter SL, Peters AS. 50 years of publication in the field of medical education. Med Teach. 2013;35:591–8. CrossRef
Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298:1002–9. CrossRef
Altmetric. Explorer for institutions. 2017. https://www.altmetric.com/products/explorer-for-institutions/. Accessed: 31 May 2018.
Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, et al. The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3119v1.
R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2017. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed: 31 May 2018.
Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Spring-Verlag; 2009. CrossRef
Augie B. gridextra: miscellaneous functions for ‘grid’ graphics. R package version 2.2. 1st ed. 2016.
Revelle W. psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Version 1.7. 5th ed. 2017.
Wickham H. Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw. 2007; https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12. Accessed: 31 May 2018.
Hilbe J. COUNT: functions, data and code for count data. R package version 1.3.4. 2016.
Eysenbach G. Citation advantage of open access articles. Plos Biol. 2006;4:e157. CrossRef
Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V, Sugimoto CR. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e64841. CrossRef
Gallo T. Twitter is trending in academic medicine, AAMC News. 2017. https://news.aamc.org/medical-education/article/twitter-trending-academic-medicine/ (Created 21 Feb 2017). Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
Shema H, Bar‐Ilan J, Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:1018–27. CrossRef
Cadogan M, Thoma B, Chan TM, Lin M. Free Open Access Meducation (FOAM): the rise of emergency medicine and critical care blogs and podcasts (2002–2013). Emerg Med J. 2014;31(e1):e76–e7. CrossRef
Craig ID, Plume AM, McVeigh ME, Pringle J, Amin M. Do open access articles have greater citation impact?: a critical review of the literature. J Informetr. 2007;1:239–48. CrossRef
Davis PM, Walters WH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99:208–17. CrossRef
Li X, Thelwall M, editors. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. 2012.
Willinsky JM. The stratified economics of open access. Econ Anal Policy. 2009;39:53–70. CrossRef
Mohammadi E, Thelwall M. Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: research evaluation and knowledge flows. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65:1627–38. CrossRef
Maggio LA, Moorhead LL, Willinsky JM. Qualitative study of physicians’ varied uses of biomedical research in the USA. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e12846. CrossRef
Bohannon J. Science latest news. 2016. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone (Created 28 Apr 2016). Accessed 14 Sept 2017.
- #MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education
Lauren A. Maggio
Todd C. Leroux
Holly S. Meyer
Anthony R. Artino Jr.
- Bohn Stafleu van Loghum