Does Facebook Post Contribute to Citation Count?: An Analysis of World’s Most Influential Scientific Articles - 2014

2018 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
S Ravikmar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count

Correlation of Altmetric Attention Scores with Citations in Major Pharmacy Journals (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave L Dixon ◽  
William L Baker
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Promotion And Tenure ◽  
Article Type ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND The impact and quality of a faculty members publications is a key factor in promotion and tenure decisions and career advancement. Traditional measures, including citation counts and journal impact factor, have notable limitations. Since 2010, alternative metrics have been proposed as another means of assessing the impact and quality of scholarly work. The Altmetric Attention Score is an objective score frequently used to determine the immediate reach of a published work across the web, including news outlets, blogs, social media, and more. Several studies evaluating the correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations have found mixed results and may be discipline-specific. OBJECTIVE To determine the correlation between higher Altmetric Attention Scores and citation count for journal articles published in major pharmacy journals. METHODS This cross-sectional study evaluated articles from major pharmacy journals ranked in the top 10% according to the Altmetric Attention Score. Sources of attention that determined the Altmetric Attention Score were obtained, as well each articles open access status, article type, study design, and topic. Correlation between journal characteristics, including the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations, was assessed using the Spearman’s correlation test. A Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the Altmetric Attention Scores between journals. RESULTS Six major pharmacy journals were identified. A total of 1,376 articles were published in 2017 and 137 of these represented the top 10% with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores. The median Altmetric Attention Score was 19 (IQR 15-28). Twitter and Mendeley were the most common sources of attention. Over half (56.2%) of the articles were original investigations and 49.8% were either cross-sectional, qualitative, or cohort studies. No significant correlation was found between the Altmetric Attention Score and citation count (rs=0.07, P = 0.485). Mendeley was the only attention source that correlated with the number of citations (rs=0.486, P<0.001). The median Altmetric Attention Score varied widely between each journal (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The overall median Altmetric Attention score of 19 suggests articles published in major pharmacy journals are near the top 5% of all scientific output. However, we found no correlation between the Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations for articles published in major pharmacy journals in the year 2017.

Examining Organizational, Cultural, and Individual-Level Factors Related to Workplace Safety and Health Awareness and Risks: A Systematic Review and Metric Analysis (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund W. J. Lee ◽  
Han Zheng ◽  
Htet Htet Aung ◽  
Megha Rani Aroor ◽  
Chen Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Workplace Safety ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Health Awareness ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Metric Analysis ◽  
Safety And Health ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

BACKGROUND Promoting safety and health awareness and mitigating risks are of paramount importance to companies in high-risk industries. Yet, there are very few studies that have synthesized findings from existing online workplace safety and health literature to identify what are the key factors that are related to (a) safety awareness, (b) safety risks, (c) health awareness, and (d) health risks. OBJECTIVE As one of the first systematic reviews in the area of workplace health and safety, this study aims to identify the factors related to safety and health awareness as well as risks, and systematically map these factors within three levels: organizational, cultural, and individual level. Also, this review aims to assess the impact of these workplace safety and health publications in both academic (e.g., academic databases, Mendeley, and PlumX) and non-academic settings (e.g., social media platform). METHODS The systematic review was conducted in line with procedures recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). First, Proquest, ScienceDirect and Scopus were identified as suitable databases for the systematic review. Second, after inputting search queries related to safety and health awareness and risks, the articles were evaluated based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Third, the factors identified in the included articles were coded systematically. Fourth, the research team assessed the impact of the articles through a combination of traditional and new metric analysis methods: citation count, Altmetric Attention Score, Mendeley readers count, usage count, and capture count. RESULTS Out of a total of 4,831 articles retrieved from the three databases, 51 articles were included in the final sample and were systematically coded. The results revealed six categories of organizational (management commitment, management support, organizational safety communication, safety management systems, physical work environment, and organizational environment), two cultural (interpersonal support and organizational culture), and four individual (perception, motivation, attitude and behavior) level factors that relate to safety and health awareness and risk. In terms of impact, the relationship between citation count and the various metrics measuring academic activity (e.g., Mendeley readers, usage count, and capture count) were mostly significant while the relationship between citation count and Altmetric Attention Score was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS This study provides a macro view of the current state of workplace safety and health research and gives scholars an indication on some of the key factors of safety and health awareness and risks. Researchers should also be cognizant that while their work may receive attention from the scholarly community, it is important to tailor their communication messages for the respective industries they are studying to maximize the receptivity and impact of their findings. CLINICALTRIAL N.A.

Research Trends in Anticoagulation Therapy over the Last 25 Years

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (08) ◽  
pp. 919-931
Author(s):  
Mustafa K. Mian ◽  
Subhashaan Sreedharan ◽  
Neeraj S. Limaye ◽  
Chris Hogan ◽  
Jai N. Darvall
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Relative Rate ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Journal Title ◽  
Common Source ◽  
Level I ◽  
High Level

AbstractA large volume of literature has become available to practitioners prescribing anticoagulants. The aim of this study was to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of the top 100 most cited articles related to anticoagulation over the past 25 years, with special consideration to impact of direct or “nonvitamin K antagonist” oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists. A bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited journal articles related to anticoagulants published between 1994 and 2019 was performed in April 2019. The top 100 articles by citation count were analyzed to extract bibliometric data related to journal title, impact factor, year of publication, place of publication, anticoagulant studied, indication for anticoagulation, study design, and conflicts of interest. The median (interquartile range) number of citations per article was 806 (621–1,085). The anticoagulant most frequently researched was warfarin (37%). NOAC publications (21%) grew at a relative rate of 3.4 times faster compared with all publications. The indication most commonly researched was venous thromboembolism (26%). Eighty articles constituted level I or II evidence, with randomized controlled trials the most common type of study (74). A financial conflict of interest was declared in 87% of articles with private, for-profit organizations the most common source of funding (26%). In summary, top research related to anticoagulation is highly impactful but may be at risk of sponsorship bias. High-level evidence for NOACs continues to expand across a range of indications with citation metrics likely to soon approach or surpass that of older drugs.

scholarly journals Standing on the shoulders of Giants: a citation analysis of the paediatric congenital heart disease literature

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Sew ◽  
Nigel E. Drury
Keyword(s):  
Citation Analysis ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Prolific Author ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective: The citation history of a published article reflects its impact on the literature over time. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to identify the most cited papers on CHD in children. Methods: One-hundred and ninety journals listed in Journal Citation Reports were accessed via Web of Science. Publications with 250 or more citations were identified from Science Citation Index Expanded (1900–2020), and those relating to structural CHD in children were reviewed. Articles were ranked by citation count and the 100 most cited were analysed. Results: The number of citations ranged from 2522 to 309 (median 431, IQR 356–518), with 35 published since 2000. All were written in English, most originated from the United States (74%), and were published in cardiovascular journals, with Circulation (28%) the most frequent. There were 86 original research articles, including 50 case series, 14 cohort studies, and 10 clinical trials. The most cited paper was by Hoffman JI and Kaplan S on the incidence of CHD. Thirteen authors had 4 or more publications in the top 100, all of whom had worked in Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, or Dallas, and the most prolific author was Newburger JW (9 articles). Conclusions: Citation analysis provides a historical perspective on scientific progress by assessing the impact of individual articles. Our study highlights the dominant position of US-based researchers and journals in this field. Most of the highly cited articles remain case series, with few randomised controlled trials in CHD appearing in recent years.

Citation Metrics in Psychological Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162096412
Author(s):  
Nina Radosic ◽  
Ed Diener
Keyword(s):  
Citation Count ◽  
National Research Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Enormous Variation ◽  
Citation Counts ◽  
Citation Metrics ◽  
Number Of Citations

We present norms for faculty citation counts based on 811 faculty members at 30 PhD-granting psychology departments in the United States across the range of the National Research Council rankings. The metrics were highly skewed, with most scientists having a low to moderate number of citations of their work and a few scientists having extremely high numbers. However, the median per-year citation count was 149, showing widespread scientific contributions across scholars. Some individuals in lower ranked departments are more highly cited than the average scholar in higher ranked departments, with enormous variation in citation counts in both the low- and high-ranking departments. Citation counts overall have risen in recent years, and the citations of early-career scholars are increasing at a faster rate than their senior colleagues did at the same point in their careers. We found that citation counts at the beginning of scientists’ careers substantially predict lifetime citation success. Young scholars’ citation counts are associated with obtaining positions at higher ranked universities. Finally, we found no significant differences for subfields of psychology. In sum, although a few highly productive scientists have a very large influence, trends reveal that contributions to psychological science are growing over time, widespread, and not limited to a few stars and elite departments.

Which journal ranking list? A case study in business and economics

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rayana Jaafar ◽  
Vijay Pereira ◽  
Samer S. Saab ◽  
Abdul-Nasser El-Kassar
Keyword(s):  
Research Output ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Journal Ranking ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Hard Time ◽  
Yearly Average ◽  
The University

PurposeWith over 3,000 academic journals in the fields of Business and Economics, most academics face a hard time selecting an adequate journal to submit their work to. In today's demanding academic environment and with the presence of different journal ranking lists (JRLs), the selection becomes more difficult when considering employment, promotion and funding. The purpose of this paper is to explore key differences among multiple JRLs pertinent to the latter common objectives. An extensive analysis is conducted to compare the content of journals in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality list, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the fields of Business and Economics. Then, a case of a university with medium research output is considered where scholarly performance evaluation is based on the ABDC Journal Quality List.Design/methodology/approachAfter ranking journals in the fields of Business and Economics based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, JCR's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and JCR's Eigenfactor (EF), a methodology is proposed to categorize journals in the three JRLs into the same categorization adopted by ABDC. The latter establishes a way to compare the four JRLs under consideration and serves as a basis to compare and analyze the content of journals in the ABDC Journal Quality list, Scopus and WoS. As a proxy impact metric, a normalized citation count is associated with each article based on Google Scholar. The publications of the considered university are then evaluated from the perspective of the four JRLs in terms of citation-based impact and quality while considering the exposure to popular world university ranking tables.FindingsFor journals classified under fourth tier by ABDC, over 53 and 59% are not indexed by Scopus and WoS, respectively. In this case study, over 42% of the publications appear in journals that are not listed in JCR despite the fact that over 94% of them are listed by the SJR list. Generally, publications that appear in journals listed by JCR achieve, on a yearly average, significantly higher citation rates when compared to those that appear in journals listed in ABDC and SJR Lists.Originality/valueA four-tier mapping is proposed for consistent comparison among JRLs. Normalized citation count associated with each article based on Google Scholar is employed for evaluation. The findings provide recommendations for scholars, administrators and global universities, including Euro-Med Universities, on which JRL can be more influential for both faculty development and positioning of the university.

Dedicated COVID-19 Resource Center in Radiology Journals: Its Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Impact

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nosaiba Al-Ryalat ◽  
Lna Malkawi ◽  
Saif Aldeen AlRyalat
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
European Radiology ◽  
Resource Center ◽  
Normalization Strategy ◽  
Academic Radiology ◽  
Current Assessment ◽  
Citation Metrics

Background: Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several journals established dedicated resource center for all articles published on COVID-19. Our study compared the altmetric impact captured by articles published in journals having such COVID-19 resource center. Methods: We used Web of Science database to assess radiology journals publishing most common articles on COVID-19. We used Dimensions database to assess citations received and altmetric attention score for each article. For each article, we extracted number of citation received and altmetric attention score. To account for the the variation in strength and exposure between included journals, we adopted a normalization strategy and we used regression analysis in our statistical analysis. Results: A total of 494 articles included in the current assessment, including 334 (67.6%) articles published in journals with dedicated COVID-19 resource center including European radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Radiology, and Journal of the American college of radiology, while European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Academic Radiology did not have COVID-19 resource center. Journals with COVID-19 resource center had a mean normalized altmetric attention score of 0.38 higher (95% CI 0.25 to 0.50; p< 0.001) and a mean normalized citation count of 6.73 higher (95% CI 3.99 to 9.48; p< 0.001) than those without COVID-19 resource center. Conclusion: Radiology journals that provided COVID-19 articles in a dedicated resource center within its homepage had higher attention and citation for their COVID-19 articles compared to journals that did not have such dedicated resource center.

scholarly journals Usage Count: A New Indicator to Detect Research Fronts

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Liang ◽  
Haiyan Hou ◽  
Zhigang Hu ◽  
Fu Huang ◽  
Yajie Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Regenerative Medicine ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Time Lag ◽  
Research Front ◽  
Research Fronts ◽  
The Mean ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Traditional Indicator ◽  
Highly Cited

Abstract Purpose Research fronts build on recent work, but using times cited as a traditional indicator to detect research fronts will inevitably result in a certain time lag. This study attempts to explore the effects of usage count as a new indicator to detect research fronts in shortening the time lag of classic indicators in research fronts detection. Design/methodology/approach An exploratory study was conducted where the new indicator “usage count” was compared to the traditional citation count, “times cited,” in detecting research fronts of the regenerative medicine domain. An initial topic search of the term “regenerative medicine” returned 10,553 records published between 2000 and 2015 in the Web of Science (WoS). We first ranked these records with usage count and times cited, respectively, and selected the top 2,000 records for each. We then performed a co-citation analysis in order to obtain the citing papers of the co-citation clusters as the research fronts. Finally, we compared the average publication year of the citing papers as well as the mean cited year of the co-citation clusters. Findings The citing articles detected by usage count tend to be published more recently compared with times cited within the same research front. Moreover, research fronts detected by usage count tend to be within the last two years, which presents a higher immediacy and real-time feature compared to times cited. There is approximately a three-year time span among the mean cited years (known as “intellectual base”) of all clusters generated by usage count and this figure is about four years in the network of times cited. In comparison to times cited, usage count is a dynamic and instant indicator. Research limitations We are trying to find the cutting-edge research fronts, but those generated based on co-citations may refer to the hot research fronts. The usage count of older highly cited papers was not taken into consideration, because the usage count indicator released by WoS only reflects usage logs after February 2013. Practical implications The article provides a new perspective on using usage count as a new indicator to detect research fronts. Originality/value Usage count can greatly shorten the time lag in research fronts detection, which would be a promising complementary indicator in detection of the latest research fronts.

scholarly journals Status Quo and Trends of Intra-Arterial Therapy for Brain Tumors: A Bibliometric and Clinical Trials Analysis

Pharmaceutics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 1885
Author(s):  
Julian S. Rechberger ◽  
Frederic Thiele ◽  
David J. Daniels
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Tumor Therapy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Blood Brain Barrier Disruption ◽  
Current State ◽  
Brain Barrier Disruption

Intra-arterial drug delivery circumvents the first-pass effect and is believed to increase both efficacy and tolerability of primary and metastatic brain tumor therapy. The aim of this update is to report on pertinent articles and clinical trials to better understand the research landscape to date and future directions. Elsevier’s Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were reviewed in August 2021 for all possible articles and clinical trials of intra-arterial drug injection as a treatment strategy for brain tumors. Entries were screened against predefined selection criteria and various parameters were summarized. Twenty clinical trials and 271 articles satisfied all inclusion criteria. In terms of articles, 201 (74%) were primarily clinical and 70 (26%) were basic science, published in a total of 120 different journals. Median values were: publication year, 1986 (range, 1962–2021); citation count, 15 (range, 0–607); number of authors, 5 (range, 1–18). Pertaining to clinical trials, 9 (45%) were phase 1 trials, with median expected start and completion years in 2011 (range, 1998–2019) and 2022 (range, 2008–2025), respectively. Only one (5%) trial has reported results to date. Glioma was the most common tumor indication reported in both articles (68%) and trials (75%). There were 215 (79%) articles investigating chemotherapy, while 13 (65%) trials evaluated targeted therapy. Transient blood–brain barrier disruption was the commonest strategy for articles (27%) and trials (60%) to optimize intra-arterial therapy. Articles and trials predominately originated in the United States (50% and 90%, respectively). In this bibliometric and clinical trials analysis, we discuss the current state and trends of intra-arterial therapy for brain tumors. Most articles were clinical, and traditional anti-cancer agents and drug delivery strategies were commonly studied. This was reflected in clinical trials, of which only a single study had reported outcomes. We anticipate future efforts to involve novel therapeutic and procedural strategies based on recent advances in the field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document