Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach

Robinson, Denise; Hopkins, Luke; Brown, Chris; Abdelrahman, Tarig; Powell, Arfon; Egan, Richard; Lewis, Wyn G.

doi:10.1007/s00268-018-04893-w

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Historically, article citation counts have always been synonymous with impact. Researcher level impact metrics , which are also based on citation counts, include the Hirsch-Index, r-index, m-index, g-index, and i10 index among others 4 . Metric use is further supported by the present study’s findings, and in particular that CRI, derived from citation count, was associated independently with iCG.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…When dichotomised around the upper quartile, articles where the first or last author featured more than once (p=0.041), original AS > 2 (p=0.003), original citation count > 521 (p=0.048), and original CRI > 34. 4…”

Section: Univariable and Multivariable Analysis Of Factors Associatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the scientific publishing climate is changing, with a fresh argot rising, allied to novel and more immediately accessible metrics. Consequently, the concept of what constitutes impact remains as important and relevant a philosophical question as ever 3,4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Predictive value of Altmetric Score on prospective citation and bibliometric impact: rise of a new argot

Robinson¹,

Powell

Waterman³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Bibliometric and Altmetric analyses provide important but alternative perspectives regarding research article impact. This study aimed to establish whether Altmetric Score (AS) was associated with citation rate, independent of bibliometrics. Method Citations for a previously reported cohort of 100 most cited articles associated with the keyword Surgery (2018, Powell et al), were collected and a three year interval Citation Gain (iCG) evaluated. Previous citation count, Citation Rate Index (CRI), AS, five year Impact Factor, and Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels were used to classify citation rate prospect. Results During follow-up, the median iCG was 161 (IQR 83 to 281), with 73 and 62 articles receiving an increase in CRI and AS, respectively. Median CRI and AS increase were 2.8 (−0.1 to 7.7) and 3 (0 to 4), respectively. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that CRI (AUC 0.86 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.93), p<0.001) and AS (Area Under Curve (AUC) 0.65 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.76), p=0.008) were associated with higher iCG. AS critical threshold greater than or equal to 2.0 was associated with better iCG when dichotomised at iCG median (OR=4.94, 95% CI 1.99 to 12.26, p=0.001) and iCG Upper Quartile (UQ, OR=4.13, 95% CI 1.60 to 10.66, p=0.003). Multivariable analysis identified that only CRI was independently associated with iCG when dichotomised at the median (OR 18.22, 95% CI 6.70 to 49.55, p<0.001) and UQ (OR 19.30, 95% CI 4.23 to 88.15, p<0.001). Conclusion Citation Rate Indices and Altmetric Scores are important predictors of interval Citation Gain, and better at predicting future citations than the historical and established Impact Factor and OCEBM quality of evidence descriptors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Univariable and Multivariable Analysis Of Factors Associatedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictive value of Altmetric Score on prospective citation and bibliometric impact: rise of a new argot

Robinson¹,

Powell

Waterman³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…bookmarklet (https://www.altmetric.com/products/ free-tools/bookmarklet) was used to obtain Altmetric scores for all publications. This methodology has been described previously [5][6][7][8] .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proof of surgical publication prowess: prospective observational study of factors associated with surrogate markers of academic reach

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the UK, general surgery higher surgical trainees (HSTs) must publish at least three peer-reviewed scientific articles (as first, second or corresponding author) to qualify for certification of completion of training (CCT). This study aimed to identify the factors associated with success in this arena. Methods: Deanery rosters supplemented with data from the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme, PubMed and ResearchGate were used to identify the profiles of consecutive HSTs. Primary outcomes were publication numbers at defined points in higher training (speciality training year (ST) 3-8); secondary outcomes were the Hirsch index and ResearchGate scores. Results: Fifty-nine consecutive HSTs (24 women, 35 men) were studied. The median publication number was 3 (range 0-30). At least three published articles were obtained by 30 HSTs (51 per cent), with 19 (38 per cent) of 50 HSTs achieving this by ST4 (of whom 15 (79 per cent) had undertaken out of programme for research (OOPR) time) and 24 (80 per cent) by ST6. Thirteen HSTs (22 per cent) (ST3, 6; ST4, 4; ST5, 2; ST8, 1) had yet to publish at the time of writing. OOPR was associated with achieving three publications (24 of 35 (69 per cent) versus 6 of 24 (25 per cent) with no formal research time; P = 0⋅001), higher overall number of publications (median 6 versus 1 respectively; P < 0⋅001), higher ResearchGate score (median 23⋅37 versus 5⋅27; P < 0⋅001) and higher Hirsch index (median 3 versus 1; P < 0⋅001). In multivariable analysis, training grade (odds ratio (OR) 1⋅89, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅01 to 3⋅52; P = 0⋅045) and OOPR (OR 6⋅55, 2⋅04 to 21⋅04; P = 0⋅002) were associated with achieving three publications. Conclusion: If CCT credentials are to include publication profiles, HST programmes should incorporate research training in workforce planning.

show abstract

“…Por otro lado, el vertiginoso ritmo con el que estos indicadores pueden cambiar hace que el presente análisis no sea más que una mera fotografía de lo ocurrido en 3 días, pudiendo no ser representativo de la considerable dinámica con la que se modifican. Las altmetrics no son los únicos indicadores modernos propuestos dado que ahora se toma en consideración la contribución del primer y último autor, el año de la primera publicación del primer autor o solamente aquellas que tienen más de 10 citaciones 29 , y tienen una limitación inherente al comportamiento del usuario de Internet porque se puede opinar positiva o negativamente de cualquier publicación y esto no es comparable con una citación clásica, que se considera siempre positiva y es habitualmente el indicador de la calidad de una revista o publicación determinada 30 . Sin embargo, el creciente interés de la comunidad científica por estas métricas es evidente y este estudio puede significar un punto de partida para la evolución de dichos indicadores en AB.…”

Section: Limitacionesunclassified

Análisis de las métricas alternativas de Archivos de Bronconeumología durante el periodo 2014-2018

López-Padilla

García‐Río

Alonso-Arroyo

et al. 2020

Archivos de Bronconeumología

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: Las métricas alternativas o altmetrics son todas aquellas mediciones de la producción científica diferentes a los indicadores clásicos y recogen su influencia mediática en redes sociales y canales de difusión similares. El objetivo del estudio fue analizar el impacto mediático de Archivos de Bronconeumología en 2 agregadores de altmetrics y de las visitas a su página web. Métodos: Estudio observacional de los artículos originales, de revisión y de consenso de Archivos de Bronconeumología durante el periodo 2014-2018. Se analizaron los agregadores PlumX Metrics y Altmetric, y las visitas a la página web de Archivos de Bronconeumología. Se realizaron 5 comparaciones: por especialidad firmante, por financiación recibida, por número de centros participantes, por tipología documental y por área temática. Como subanálisis, se correlacionaron las altmetrics con las citaciones convencionales. Resultados: Se analizaron 273 publicaciones de las que 186 fueron artículos originales (68,1%). Las publicaciones de Neumología y las de revisión y consenso obtuvieron mayor impacto mediático en los 2 agregadores analizados, así como en las visitas a la página web. El score medio de atención de Altmetric fue de 1,9 ± 4,4 (rango 0-59), por encima del promedio para la antigüedad de la publicación. Se documentó una correlación estadísticamente significativa débil a moderada entre las altmetrics y las citaciones clásicas. Conclusiones: Las publicaciones de revisión, de consenso y las de Neumología tuvieron mayor impacto mediático. El score medio de atención de Altmetric fue superior al promedio en función de la antigüedad de las publicaciones. Se objetivó una correlación débil a moderada de las altmetrics con las citaciones convencionales.

show abstract

Relative Value of Adapted Novel Bibliometrics in Evaluating Surgical Academic Impact and Reach

Cited by 23 publications

References 26 publications

Predictive value of Altmetric Score on prospective citation and bibliometric impact: rise of a new argot

Predictive value of Altmetric Score on prospective citation and bibliometric impact: rise of a new argot

Proof of surgical publication prowess: prospective observational study of factors associated with surrogate markers of academic reach

Análisis de las métricas alternativas de Archivos de Bronconeumología durante el periodo 2014-2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About