214 If I tweet more about my paper, will I improve my citation index?

Chen, Winnie M Y; Cocskhull, Francesca; Bukhari, Marwan; Galloway, James

doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kez107.030

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies were by Amath [ 32 , 33 ], Hayon [ 34 ], Knight [ 35 , 36 ], Nolte [ 37 , 38 ], and O’Connor [ 39 , 40 ]. A total of 5 articles included only a conference abstract but were deemed to provide sufficient data for inclusion [ 41 - 45 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main characteristics of impact studies are summarized in Table 1 . In all, 86% (44/51) studies were categorized as correlational studies [ 16 , 17 , 25 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 41 - 45 , 53 - 83 ], as they described the associations between traditional bibliometrics and Altmetrics. Correlational studies were classified according to the number of quality indicators as follows: very good quality , with 4/4 indicators (7/44, 16% studies; Table 2 ); good quality , with 3/4 indicators (8/44, 18% studies; Table 3 ); fair quality , with 2/4 indicators (10/44, 23% studies; Table 4 ); poor quality , with 1/4 indicators (12/44, 27% studies; Table 5 ); and very poor quality , with 0/4 indicators (7/44, 16% studies; Table 6 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in the last 4 columns of Tables 2 to 6 , the methodological quality of the papers varied according to the type of article and amount of detail included in the publication. The 5 conference abstracts included in the list of correlational studies [ 41 - 45 ] did not provide sufficient information to meet most of the methodological quality indicators. Only 3 of these [ 41 , 42 , 44 ] provided different correlation results according to the type of disease area, topic, or article type; hence, they were deemed to have adjusted for confounders.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 5 conference abstracts included in the list of correlational studies [ 41 - 45 ] did not provide sufficient information to meet most of the methodological quality indicators. Only 3 of these [ 41 , 42 , 44 ] provided different correlation results according to the type of disease area, topic, or article type; hence, they were deemed to have adjusted for confounders. Of the remaining 39 studies with full-text, 16 adjusted the social media metric for time (16/39, 41%); 22 studies adjusted for confounders such as article type or topic (22/39, 56%), but none included the seasonality and timeframe of the article publication.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In reference to the association between Altmetric scores and bibliometrics, the results were mixed. No significant correlations were reported in 12 of 44 studies (27%) [ 25 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 55 , 64 - 66 , 71 , 77 , 83 ]; weak or moderate correlations were reported by authors in 13 of 44 studies (30%) [ 16 , 17 , 39 , 43 , 53 , 61 - 63 , 67 , 72 - 74 , 76 ]. Strong positive associations were reported by the authors of half (22) of the correlational studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact. Objective The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis. Results Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) impact studies (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) correlational studies (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research. Conclusions We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Bardus¹,

El-Rassi²,

Chahrour³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND

Academics in all disciplines increasingly use social media to share their publications on the internet, reaching out to different audiences. In the last few years, specific indicators of social media impact have been developed (eg, Altmetrics), to complement traditional bibliometric indicators (eg, citation count and h-index). In health research, it is unclear whether social media impact also translates into research impact.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the impact of using social media on the dissemination of health research. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between Altmetrics and traditional citation-based metrics.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluated the use of social media to disseminate research published in health-related journals. We specifically looked at studies that described experimental or correlational studies linking the use of social media with outcomes related to bibliometrics. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases using a predefined search strategy (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42017057709). We conducted independent and duplicate study selection and data extraction. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, we summarized the findings through a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Of a total of 18,624 retrieved citations, we included 51 studies: 7 (14%) <i>impact studies</i> (answering the primary aim) and 44 (86%) <i>correlational studies</i> (answering the secondary aim). Impact studies reported mixed results with several limitations, including the use of interventions of inappropriately low intensity and short duration. The majority of correlational studies suggested a positive association between traditional bibliometrics and social media metrics (eg, number of mentions) in health research.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified suggestive yet inconclusive evidence on the impact of using social media to increase the number of citations in health research. Further studies with better design are needed to assess the causal link between social media impact and bibliometrics.

show abstract

214 If I tweet more about my paper, will I improve my citation index?

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review

The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About