Social Media in Neurosurgery: Using ResearchGate

Joshi, Neil; Lieber, Bryan; Wong, Karren; Al-Alam, Eliana; Agarwal, Nitin; Diaz, Vicki

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2019.04.007

Cited by 24 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The stated variables used to compute the RG score are NP, questions, answers, and followers. The RG score displayed a robust correlation with the traditional metrics; this has been previously reported for other disciplines as well [17]. However, when we performed curve estimation analyses, we found that the RG score displayed a logarithmic relation with Sc-NP, Sc-NC, and Sc-AHi, approaching an asymptote beyond an RG score of 50 (Figures 2a-2c).…”

Section: Researchgate Alternative Metricssupporting

confidence: 80%

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors

Kalvapudi¹,

Subeikshanan²,

Belavadi³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectiveThere is a paucity of information regarding the concordance of traditional metrics across publicly searchable databases and about the correlation between alternative and traditional metrics for neurosurgical authors. In this study, we aimed to assess the congruence between traditional metrics reported across Google Scholar (GS), Scopus (Sc), and ResearchGate (RG). We also aimed to establish the mathematical correlation between traditional metrics and alternative metrics provided by ResearchGate. MethodsAuthor names listed on papers published in the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in 2019 were collated.Traditional metrics [number of publications (NP), number of citations (NC), and author H-indices (AHi)] and alternative metrics (RG score, Research Interest score, etc. from RG and the GS i10-index) were also collected from publicly searchable author profiles. The concordance between the traditional metrics across the three databases was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman (BA) plots. The mathematical relation between the traditional and alternative metrics was analyzed. ResultsThe AHi showed excellent agreement across the three databases studied. The level of agreement for NP and NC was good at lower median counts. At higher median counts, we found an increase in disagreement, especially for NP. The RG score, number of followers on RG, and Research Interest score independently predicted NC and AHi with a reasonable degree of accuracy. ConclusionsA composite author-level matrix with AHi, RG score, Research Interest score, and the number of RG followers could be used to generate an "Impact Matrix" to describe the scholarly and real-world impact of a clinician's work.

show abstract

Section: Researchgate Alternative Metricssupporting

confidence: 80%

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors

Kalvapudi¹,

Subeikshanan²,

Belavadi³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, it has been shown that ResearchGate scores are correlated with the academic level of registered researchers. 11 Finally, our work analysed the 'social' or biological sex of the authors but did not take their gender into account. Our technique therefore did not allow us to detect whether a person is transgender or intersex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in professional social media use among anaesthesia researchers

Demailly

Brulard

Selim

et al. 2020

British Journal of Anaesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Recent studies suggest that female researchers are less visible on social media. The objective of this observational work was to compare the use of professional social networks between male and female anaesthesia researchers. Methods: Among four anaesthesia journals, we analysed the first/last authors (FA/LA) of the most frequently cited articles in 2016e2017 and the authors who published more than one article per year between 2013 and 2018 (prolific authors). We compared the use of the professional social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, and ResearchGate by the selected authors and analysed the proportion of women in FA and LA position. The variables are presented as median (interquartile range). Results: The analysis included 260 FA, 232 LA, and 297 prolific authors. Despite similar declared skills and number of citations, women had lower scientific reputation scores on ResearchGate (RG score: 32.0 [24.4e41.1] vs 20.3 [15.1e29.2]; P<0.0001 in the FA group; 39.3 [34.3e43.4] vs 35.7 [30.3e39.5], P<0.01 in the LA group; and 41.5 [35.6e45.7] vs 36.8 [28.1e42.7], P<0.01 in the prolific group).In all groups, women were significantly less followed on ResearchGate than men. In the three groups, the Twitter (22.7%, 25.0%, and 23.6%, respectively) and LinkedIn (59.2%, 56.5%, and 62.3%, respectively) usage rate were similar with no difference between men and women in each group. Of the 260 articles included, 94 (36.2%) manuscripts had female FA, whereas 41 (15.8%) had female LA. Conclusion:In anaesthesia, the visibility of female researchers on the social network dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

show abstract

“…Another likely explanation is that as ResearchGate is a social network specifically dedicated to research, it makes more sense for a researcher to be present there than to have a professional account on a mainstream network such as Twitter. The rates of use of professional social networks (Twitter: 42% (68/162) and ResearchGate: 67.9% (110/162)) are higher than those recently described among ENT surgeons, neurosurgeons, or pediatric orthopedists (Twitter: 2%-13% and ResearchGate: 23%-36%) [ 16 - 18 ]. The presence on Twitter of French anesthesia researchers also appears to be greater than that of nonacademic professionals from the same country working in the same field (17%) [ 7 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Third, some bibliometric parameters of ResearchGate such as RG score and total Research Interest score were not analyzed in our work. However, these scores are based on the number of publications and citations of researchers and have already been shown to be correlated with the h-index, the number of citations, the number of publication, and the academic level of registered researchers [ 9 , 18 , 22 , 23 ]. Thus, it appeared futile to search for correlation between these scores and the bibliometric parameters found on Web of Sciences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Association Between Professional Accounts on Social Networks Twitter and ResearchGate and the Number of Scientific Publications and Citations Among Anesthesia Researchers: Observational Study

Clavier¹,

Occhiali²,

Demailly³

et al. 2021

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social networks are now essential tools for promoting research and researchers. However, there is no study investigating the link between presence or not on professional social networks and scientific publication or citation for a given researcher. Objective The objective of this study was to study the link between professional presence on social networks and scientific publications/citations among anesthesia researchers. Methods We included all the French full professors and associate professors of anesthesia. We analyzed their presence on the social networks Twitter (professional account with ≥1 tweet over the 6 previous months) and ResearchGate. We extracted their bibliometric parameters for the 2016-2020 period via the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) database in the Science Citation Index-Expanded index. Results A total of 162 researchers were analyzed; 42 (25.9%) had an active Twitter account and 110 (67.9%) a ResearchGate account. There was no difference between associate professors and full professors regarding active presence on Twitter (8/23 [35%] vs. 34/139 [24.5%], respectively; P=.31) or ResearchGate (15/23 [65%] vs. 95/139 [68.3%], respectively; P=.81). Researchers with an active Twitter account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (45 [28-61] vs. 26 [12-41]; P<.001), a higher h-index (12 [8-16] vs. 8 [5-11]; P<.001), a higher number of citations per publication (12.54 [9.65-21.8] vs. 10.63 [5.67-16.10]; P=.01), and a higher number of citations (563 [321-896] vs. 263 [105-484]; P<.001). Researchers with a ResearchGate account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (33 [17-47] vs. 26 [9-43]; P=.03) and a higher h-index (9 [6-13] vs. 8 [3-11]; P=.03). There was no difference between researchers with a ResearchGate account and those without it concerning the number of citations per publication and overall number of citations. In multivariate analysis including sex, academic status, and presence on social networks, the presence on Twitter was associated with the number of publications (β=20.2; P<.001), the number of citations (β=494.5; P<.001), and the h-index (β=4.5; P<.001). Conclusions Among French anesthesia researchers, an active presence on Twitter is associated with higher scientific publication and citations.

show abstract

Social Media in Neurosurgery: Using ResearchGate

Cited by 24 publications

References 12 publications

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors

The Author-Level Metrics Study: An Analysis of the Traditional and Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Impact for Neurosurgical Authors

Gender differences in professional social media use among anaesthesia researchers

The Association Between Professional Accounts on Social Networks Twitter and ResearchGate and the Number of Scientific Publications and Citations Among Anesthesia Researchers: Observational Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About