Introducing the Twitter Impact Factor: An Objective Measure of Urology's Academic Impact on Twitter

Cardona-Grau, Diana; Sorokin, Igor; Leinwand, Gabriel; Welliver, Robert C.

doi:10.1016/j.euf.2016.03.006

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it should not be expected that research works will become highly cited solely based on social media promotion. Cardona‐Grau, Sorokin, Leinwand, and Welliver () propose a novel metric called Twitter Impact Factor (TIF) to measure the impact of urology journals on Twitter. A journal's TIF is calculated based on the number of retweets per original relevant tweet, which is similar to the concept of the traditional JIF.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media presence of scholarly journals

Zheng

Aung

Erdt

et al. 2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, social media has become a potentially new way for scholarly journals to disseminate and evaluate research outputs. Scholarly journals have started promoting their research articles to a wide range of audiences via social media platforms. This article aims to investigate the social media presence of scholarly journals across disciplines. We extracted journals from Web of Science and searched for the social media presence of these journals on Facebook and Twitter. Relevant metrics and content relating to the journals' social media accounts were also crawled for data analysis. From our results, the social media presence of scholarly journals lies between 7.1% and 14.2% across disciplines; and it has shown a steady increase in the last decade. The popularity of scholarly journals on social media is distinct across disciplines. Further, we investigated whether social media metrics of journals can predict the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). We found that the number of followers and disciplines have significant effects on the JIF. In addition, a word co‐occurrence network analysis was also conducted to identify popular topics discussed by scholarly journals on social media platforms. Finally, we highlight challenges and issues faced in this study and discuss future research directions.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social media presence of scholarly journals

Zheng

Aung

Erdt

et al. 2018

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, a 2016 article has reported on the creation of the Twitter impact factor for the assessment of Urology journals, having found that 21% of the analyzed journals had a Twitter account, which is close to our finding of 22.8%. This article also discovered a positive association between social media mentions and the journal's impact factor based on the journals listed in Journal Citation Reports [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Social Networks and Traditional Metrics of Impact in Pulmonary Medicine Journals: A Correlation Study

Patiño-Hernández

Fernández-Ávila

Celis-Preciado

et al. 2020

Advances in Respiratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) impact factor is extensively used. However, as the Internet has become widely available, new metrics are coming into play. Our research aims to determine whether a correlation between the SJR impact factor and metrics reflecting social media activity does exist. Materials and methods: We have used pulmonary medicine journals indexed in the SJR. Variables of social network usage have been extracted from verified accounts. Bivariate analyses have been performed with the Mann-Whitney U tests, the correlation between social media-derived variables and the SJR impact factor have been assessed with the Spearman correlation coefficient. Results are presented before and after adjustment for the years since the creation of the accounts. Results: From 130 journals, 38 had at least one social network account, Twitter being the most commonly used (22.85 %). The H index was higher in journals with social network accounts (median 60 vs 17; p < 0.01). The global correlation between the SJR and the number of followers on Twitter revealed moderate agreement (r = 0.46; p < 0.01), which was excellent in open access journals (r s = 0.90; p < 0.05). Conclusions: The use of social networks is directly correlated with traditional indicators of scientific impact. The joint use of alternative and traditional metrics may be useful for journals in order to generate strategies aiming to increase their audience, as well as for researchers when deciding about the best option of disseminating their articles.

show abstract

“…A lack of understanding about what constitutes effective communication may contribute to medical errors that endanger patient safety [10,19]. The high engagement in case discussions indicated that clinicians were interested in the cases [20]. However, to our surprise, the clinicians who participated in the WeChat groups preferred to award their 'likes' to cases for 'surgical results show', most of which were incomplete cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Case discussions using WeChat: Are they reliable?

Alkhatatbeh

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : At present, more and more clinicians in China are partaking in case discussions using WeChat groups for the purposes of communication, diagnosis, treatment planning, and information sharing. However, the reliability of discussions using WeChat groups remains debatable. This study aimed to analyze case discussions in WeChat groups and evaluate their significance. Methods : By taking screenshots of the chat records from the most-used WeChat groups by orthopedic surgeons, all of the data related to the cases were collected from June to August in 2019. We analyzed the purpose, participation, and completeness of each case. Furthermore, we analyzed whether the conclusion reached in each case discussion, which was supported by the majority of members, was consistent with the opinion of three experts after evaluating all of the data from the case records. Results : Seven WeChat groups and 60 cases were included. WeChat group members often discussed cases to show surgical results (40.0%), to obtain treatment advice (39.0%), and to seek diagnostic advice (9%). The rate of ‘likes’ for ‘surgical results show’ was greater than the rate of ‘likes’ for alternative purposes (P<0.05). The percentage of complete, relatively complete and incomplete cases was 23%, 32%, and 45%, respectively. The relatively complete cases received more effective comments than the other cases (P<0.05). The cases for diagnostic purposes were more complete than those for other purposes (P<0.05). Among 60 cases, only 29 cases led to the same conclusions being reached among the three experts and WeChat group members. The consistency rate of conclusions relating to treatment was higher than that associated with the other purposes (P<0.05). The consistency rate of the complete cases was higher than that of the relatively complete and incomplete cases (P<0.05). Conclusions : Clinicians should treat discussions in WeChat groups for clinical decision-making with caution. Online discussions using WeChat groups should be standardized in respect to the cases presented and the comments that are generated.

show abstract

Introducing the Twitter Impact Factor: An Objective Measure of Urology's Academic Impact on Twitter

Cited by 44 publications

References 8 publications

Social media presence of scholarly journals

Social media presence of scholarly journals

Social Networks and Traditional Metrics of Impact in Pulmonary Medicine Journals: A Correlation Study

Case discussions using WeChat: Are they reliable?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About