Evaluating Scholars’ Impact and Influence: Cross-sectional Study of the Correlation Between a Novel Social Media–Based Score and an Author-Level Citation Metric

Abstract

Background The development of an author-level complementary metric could play a role in the process of academic promotion through objective evaluation of scholars’ influence and impact. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, a novel social media influence and impact metric, and the h-index, a traditional author-level metric. Methods This was a cross-sectional study of health care stakeholders with a social media presence randomly sampled from the Symplur database in May 2020. We performed stratified random sampling to obtain a representative sample with all strata of HSG scores. We manually queried the h-index in two reference-based databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Continuous features (HSG score and h-index) from the included profiles were summarized as the median and IQR. We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficients (ρ) to evaluate the correlation between the HSG scores and h-indexes obtained from Google Scholar and Scopus. Results A total of 286 (31.2%) of the 917 stakeholders had a Google Scholar h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 61.1 (IQR 48.2), and the median h-index was 14.5 (IQR 26.0). For the 286 subjects with the HSG score and Google Scholar h-index available, the Spearman correlation coefficient ρ was 0.1979 (P<.001), indicating a weak positive correlation between these two metrics. A total of 715 (78%) of 917 stakeholders had a Scopus h-index available. The median HSG score for these profiles was 57.6 (IQR 46.4), and the median h-index was 7 (IQR 16). For the 715 subjects with the HSG score and Scopus h-index available, ρ was 0.2173 (P<.001), also indicating a weak positive correlation. Conclusions We found a weak positive correlation between a novel author-level complementary metric and the h-index. More than a chiasm between traditional citation metrics and novel social media–based metrics, our findings point toward a bridge between the two domains.

The Top 100 Twitter Influencers in Infectious Diseases

“…The h-index median was higher than identified for cardiologist influencers (median, 22), orthopedic surgeons (median, 7), and plastic surgeons (median, 5) in previous studies 13,15,16 . Recent discussions highlighted that the h-index failed in evaluating the influence outside the traditional academic environment, which could be the case for Twitter influencers 18,19 . Alternative metrics are being developed with the goal to measure authors' impact as complementary methods to traditional metric systems such as the h-index 18,19 …”

“…18,19 Alternative metrics are being developed with the goal to measure authors' impact as complementary methods to traditional metric systems such as the h-index. 18,19 Ideally, responsibility should follow the authority, so healthcare professionals are vested in their social media educator roles. Topf and Williams 20 defined a public physician as an outward-facing person who recognizes that the benefits of public engagement outweigh the risks.…”

#COVID19 and #Breastcancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Tweets

“…Symplur originated from Twitter and was developed using the Twitter application programming interface (API). Data from public social media accounts are linked to Twitter data to develop the health social graph score [ 12 ]. Within the #BreastSurgery dataset, the search terms COVID, COVID-19, coronavirus, and pandemic were applied with the inclusion of tweets in English ranging from 11 March 2020 to 31 October 2020.…”

Social Media and Professional Development for Oncology Professionals

“…11 A novel tool that has appeared in the recent medical literature comes from the social media analytics company, Symplur, called the Healthcare Social Graph (HSG) score, representing an attempt to quantify a person's influence in the social media space. 12 The HSG ranks influencers in the medical space by global conversational impact over the span of 1 year. It uses three components: a social network analysis algorithm, stakeholder weighting, and an algorithm that judges the quality of conversations.…”