Search

Background: A significant gap remains between the availability of physical activity (PA) evidence-based interventions and their application in real-world settings in policy and practice areas. This study aims to describe highly cited and high altmetrics publications in PA research and explore their impact on PA policy and practice. Methods: Mixed-methods sequential explanatory study including the identification and description of the top highly cited and high altmetrics PA publications from the last 10 years (including study design, population, type of PA study, number of citations, and altmetrics score), and interviews with key informants regarding research dissemination and implications on PA policy and practice. Results: When considering publication type, the most frequent highly cited publications were health consequences (40%, altmetrics = 42%), measurement/trends (23%, altmetrics = 10%), and correlates/determinants (21%, altmetrics = 26%) studies. They were predominantly cross-sectional (50%, altmetrics = 28%), systematic reviews (38%, altmetrics = 18%), and longitudinal studies (8%, altmetrics = 37%). All authors who participated in the interviews agreed that the most important factors in disseminating findings and influencing PA policy and practice were the published peer-reviewed manuscript itself, the reputation of the journal, the communication strategy, and the use of online platforms. Conclusions: To have a real-world influence on PA policy and practice, it is not enough to publish the results in scientific journals and participate in media outreach. To successfully involve policymakers and communities in appropriating the evidence and evaluating the extent to which these findings affect policy and practice outcomes, it is critical to lead co-creation, co-dissemination, advocacy, and capacity building efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we conducted a bibliometric and altmetric analysis of the top 100 most-cited articles on religion from 2010 to 2023. The data were sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection database. VOSviewer was utilized to create visualization knowledge maps such as co-authorship, co-citation, and keywords co-occurrence analysis, and the Spearman correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationships between the variables. The results indicate that these articles were published in 22 journals by 231 authors in 158 institutions across 24 countries. Most of the articles were published from the USA. Kenneth I. Pargament and Harold G. Koenig were identified as two of the most prominent scholars, while the Journal of Religion and Health and the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality emerged as the most productive and influential journals. The citations for these articles span a range of 45 to 828, whereas the altmetric attention scores (AAS) vary from 1 to 797. The Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the AAS is weakly positively correlated with the article influence score (AIS) ( r = 0.285 ) and weakly negatively correlated with the number of years since publication (NYsP) ( r = - 0.233 ), but is not significantly correlated with other bibliometric indicators; however, it is posited that the importance of the AAS may increase over time as the influence of social media continues to expand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the importance of Google Search in generating visits to institutional repositories (IR), a lack of visibility in search engine results pages can hinder the possibility of their publications being found, read, downloaded, and, eventually, cited. To address this, institutions need to evaluate the visibility of their repositories to determine what actions might be implemented to enhance them. However, measuring the search engine optimization (SEO) visibility of IRs requires a highly accurate, technically feasible method. This study constitutes the first attempt to design such a method, specifically applied here to measuring the IR visibility of Spain's national university system in Google Search based on a set of SEO-based metrics derived from the Ubersuggest SEO tool. A comprehensive dataset spanning three months and comprising 217,589 bibliographic records and 316,899 organic keywords is used as a baseline. Our findings show that many records deposited in these repositories are not ranked among the top positions in Google Search results, and that the most visible records are mainly academic works (theses and dissertations) written in Spanish in the Humanities and Social Sciences. However, most visits are generated by a small number of records. All in all, our results call into question the role played by IRs in attracting readers via Google Search to the institutions' scientific heritage and serve to underscore the prevailing emphasis within IRs on preservation as opposed to online dissemination. Potential improvements might be achieved using enhanced metadata schemes and normalized description practices, as well as by adopting other actionable insights that can strengthen the online visibility of IRs. This study increases understanding of the role played by web indicators in assessing the web-based impact of research outputs deposited in IRs, and should be of particular interest for a range of stakeholders, including open access and open science advocates, research agencies, library practitioners, repository developers, and website administrators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated reasons for retraction, pre-and post-retraction citations and Altmetrics indicators of retracted publications in the medical sciences from 2016 to 2020. Data were retrieved from Scopus (n = 840). The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the reasons for retraction and the time that elapsed from publication to retraction. The findings showed that intentional errors were the most prevalent reasons for retraction. China (438), the United States (130), and India (51) have the largest share of retractions. These retracted publications were cited 5,659 times in other research publications, of which 1,559 citations occurred after the retraction, which should raise concern. These retracted papers were also shared in online platforms, mainly on Twitter and by members of the general public. We recommend that the early detection of retracted papers may help to reduce the rate of citation and sharing of these publications, and minimize their negative impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Altmetric.com and PlumX are two prominent tools for collecting alternative metrics data. This study has two main objectives: first, to evaluate how the choice between Altmetric.com and PlumX affects the results of alternative metrics analysis, and second, to investigate the social impact of 'hot papers' through the alternative metrics data provided by these platforms. We employed a descriptive and exploratory approach, gathering common alternative metrics from 4236 hot papers using both Altmetric.com and PlumX. The data collected included various alternative metrics such as policy mentions, Mendeley readers, Wikipedia mentions, blog mentions, Facebook mentions, and news mentions, in addition to citation counts from Scopus. We conducted descriptive statistics and inferential analyses to examine the relationships between citations and alternative metrics, as well as to compare the data obtained from both platforms. Our findings indicate that PlumX has broader coverage of hot papers compared to Altmetric.com. While the mean and individual values of alternative metrics differ between the two platforms, the median and geometric mean are similar. Both Altmetric.com and PlumX demonstrate that publications with higher citation counts tend to receive more online attention. Notably, all alternative metrics for Immunology and Chemistry showed statistically significant differences between the two platforms, whereas in Mathematics, alternative metrics (with the exception of Mendeley readers) did not exhibit significant differences. The findings suggest that researchers should be aware of potential variations in data captured by different alternative metrics platforms. Additionally, interpreting alternative metrics data requires caution, considering the research fields and the specific platform used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparing research performance across distinct subject domains is not recommended unless proper treatments are applied to normalize the domain‐specific characteristics. Except for limited research aimed at exploring the field‐dependent behaviours of specific research performance indicators, it is difficult to find comprehensive research examining both conventional and altmetric indicators for their influence on journals, articles, and authors in distinct subject domains. This research used Scopus and PlumX as sources to collect conventional and altmetric data, respectively. In addition to descriptive statistics, the Mann–Whitney U test, cluster plots, and correlation analysis were employed for data analysis. The results reveal that all three levels of indicators behave in notably different ways in Medicine compared with that of the Physical and Social Sciences. Most indicators in all three levels attain higher maximum and average values in Medicine. For instance, the maximum values for most indicators, except for citations and documents, are significantly higher in Medicine than in the Physical and Social Sciences. However, the citations and productivity of Physical Sciences journals surpass the two in other domains. SNIP deviates lightly across subject domains compared with that of other journal‐level indicators. Further, citations do not have a large influence on SNIP and SJR as they do Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore. All article‐level indicators show significant differences between Medicine and the Physical Sciences. Between the Physical and Social Sciences, all indicators except page count show significant differences. Further, article‐level indicators in the Social Sciences behave in nearly the same way as in the Physical Sciences. Citation counts positively influence captures. In addition, Medicine authors are likely to make more impact and be more productive in their field than authors in other fields. Collaboration was also found to improve both the productivity of authors and the impact of their research, irrespective of the domain they work in. These findings are important to authors, research evaluators, and publishers from different viewpoints. Discouraging performance comparisons based on raw indicator values can protect researchers from inaccurate assessments, enabling them to fully realize their potential for conducting cutting‐edge research. Finally, this research indicates different directions along which this area of research can be extended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate the attention given to scientific outputs about COVID-19 vaccines worldwide on social media. It utilized scientometrics and altmetrics indicators. A dataset with 12,364 works indexed in the WOS database from 2020 to 2022 was analyzed. Altmetric Scores (AS) and Altmetrics were extracted from Altmetric Explorer. Data analysis was performed using Access, Excel, and SPSS software. The retrieved articles garnered attention on 13 social media platforms. The highest amount of social attention, accounting for 97% of the total, was related to X (Twitter) and Mendeley. The highest AS (43,765) was for an open-access article entitled "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial: Video 1" in the BMJ cited in 14 social media. The most productive countries in COVID-19 vaccine research were the USA, England, and China, while Harvard University, the University of London, and the University of California emerged as the most active research institutes. The findings confirmed a significant, moderate, and positive correlation between the AS and most Altmetrics with the number of citations. Additionally, a positive, substantial, and moderate correlation was observed between citations, the AS of highly-cited papers, and the AS of hot documents. Considering the positive impact of social media on increasing the chance of receiving more citations for articles and improving the impact range of articles from academic users to social users, the activities of researchers in social media are effective in increasing the visibility of scientific works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter‐century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry. Results: Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in "Dentistry (miscellaneous)" and "Oral Surgery" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. "Implant system/design/characteristics," "Bone Augmentation," and "Implant Prosthesis" were the top most investigated topics. Conclusions: The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high‐level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country‐ and author‐collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Individual researcher impact through scientific citations is carefully monitored, with little attention to the impact of individual journals through policy and patent mentions. We aimed to describe policy and patent mentions for articles published in Clinical Toxicology. Methods: Using Altmetric Explorer, we extracted mentions from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2023, noting the citing source, Clinical Toxicology article title, and author-generated keywords. We used descriptive statistics to analyse the data. Results: We identified 165 individual policy documents (n = 139) and patents (n = 26), citing 146 articles with median of 6.4 years between publication and mention. The highest number of citing documents were by the World Health Organization (n = 45), European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (n = 22), and United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n = 16). Most patents were registered in the United States (n = 17) and by the European Patent Office (n = 10), with the main classification of human necessities (n = 23). The commonest subjects of papers cited in policy and patents, from keywords, related to medical conditions and symptoms (26%) and recreational drugs (22%). The most cited article was "A systematic review of adverse events arising from the use of synthetic cannabinoids and their associated treatment." Discussion: Clinical Toxicology articles are cited in policy documents and patents, with a comparable number of mentions to the top-ranked journals in the field. This likely contributes to policy impact, but further work is needed to understand how cited articles are used and ripple effects through onwards citations of policy documents. Conclusions: Clinical Toxicology is a toxicology journal for which published research gets recognised within influential policy sources. The Journal can play a key role in guiding public health policy through its selection and development of submitted publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite differences in extent of engagement of users, original tweets and retweets to scientific publications are considered as equal events. Current research investigates quantifiable differences between tweets and retweets from an altmetric point of view. Twitter users, text, and media content of two datasets, one containing 742 randomly selected tweets and retweets (371 each) and another with 5898 tweets and retweets (about 3000 each), all linking to scientific articles published on PLoS ONE, were manually categorized. Results from analyzing the proportions of tweets and retweets indicated that academic and individual accounts produce majority of original tweets (34% and 55%, respectively) and posted significantly larger proportion of retweets (41.5 and 81%). Bot accounts, on the other hand, had posted significantly more original tweets (20%) than retweets (2%). Natural communication sentences prevailed in retweets and tweets (63% vs. 45%) as well as images (41.5% vs. 23%), both showing a significant rise in usage overtime. Overall, the findings suggest that the attention scientific articles receive on Twitter may have more to do with human interaction and inclusion of visual content in the tweets, than the significance of or genuine interest towards the research results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) fluctuations and altmetrics source stability in Information Science & Library Sciences publications, analyzing 26,474 documents from 2012 to 2021. It finds that 23.7% of these publications experienced AAS fluctuations over a year. Significant influences on AAS variability include Twitter mentions and policy documents, with Twitter mentions showing high volatility, affecting nearly 30% of papers. The removal of the Analysis & Policy Observatory as a policy source led to a notable drop in policy document mentions. Various types of mention vanishing are identified, such as administrative decisions by altmetrics aggregators, technological issues, user actions on digital platforms, and natural changes on platforms like Wikipedia. In response, the study proposes modifications in the tracking and monitoring system of mentions to not overlook these vanishings. This aims to enhance the reliability and stability of altmetrics at a time when there is a call for their use in the research evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the Altmetric Manifesto was published in 2010, a large number of studies have quantitatively examined altmetric-citation associations to assess if and how altmetrics differ from citations. These efforts resulted in a diverse array of observations that varies within and between indicators. These studies also differ in the measurement environment, potentially introducing confounding variables. We sought here to clarify this diversity with a meta-analysis and examine if any of several factors moderated the altmetric-citation relationship. We identified relevant literature examining altmetric-citation correlations in the Web of Science and extracted from each study the correlation coefficient, sample size, and potential moderator variables, such as publication year, field, and citation source. We collated 914 correlation coefficients from 111 studies examining 13 altmetric indicators. We fitted multi-level random-effects meta-analysis models for each altmetric indicator individually and examined moderators for Mendeley, Twitter, Altmetric Attention Score, and usage metrics. Mendeley, usage metrics, ResearchGate, Twitter, and peer ratings showed the strongest association with citations, while Facebook, Wikipedia, Google + , blogs, news, and Reddit were only weakly associated with citations. No variable consistently moderated the altmetric-citation relationship, suggesting that, when associations were observed, they were structural and persistent. Altmetrics that did not demonstrate an association evidently differ from citations in the impact construct measured. Hence, our study highlights the diversity among altmetrics channels, as the characteristics of each channel partly define the potential mentions of research in these channels, suggesting a nuanced application of the diverse channels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate the attention given to scientific outputs about COVID-19 vaccines worldwide on social media. It utilized scientometrics and altmetrics indicators. A dataset with 12,364 works indexed in the WOS database from 2020 to 2022 was analyzed. Altmetric Scores (AS) and Altmetrics were extracted from Altmetric Explorer. Data analysis was performed using Access, Excel, and SPSS software. The retrieved articles garnered attention on 13 social media platforms. The highest amount of social attention, accounting for 97% of the total, was related to X (Twitter) and Mendeley. The highest AS (43,765) was for an open-access article entitled "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial: Video 1" in the BMJ cited in 14 social media. The most productive countries in COVID-19 vaccine research were the USA, England, and China, while Harvard University, the University of London, and the University of California emerged as the most active research institutes. The findings confirmed a significant, moderate, and positive correlation between the AS and most Altmetrics with the number of citations. Additionally, a positive, substantial, and moderate correlation was observed between citations, the AS of highly-cited papers, and the AS of hot documents. Considering the positive impact of social media on increasing the chance of receiving more citations for articles and improving the impact range of articles from academic users to social users, the activities of researchers in social media are effective in increasing the visibility of scientific works.

Purpose: Science journalists can play a significant role in evaluating the social impact and "altmetric" score of research published in scientific journals through their coverage in news media. This requires the indexing of news articles in altmetric databases. The present study aims to investigate the performance of Iranian science journalists in the Altmetric.com database by analyzing indexed news articles from Iranian news media.Methodology: The data necessary for conducting this research were collected in two main stages from three databases: Altmetric.com, JCR, and Scopus. In the first stage, a dataset containing 2,972 news articles that mentioned research outputs from Iranian news media was downloaded from Altmetric.com. Next, the impact factors of the journals cited in the news articles were extracted from the JCR database. In the final stage, the list of DOIs for the research articles referenced in the news, available in the downloaded file from the previous stage, was combined using the OR operator, and a search was conducted in the advanced search section of Scopus.Findings: The research results show that content published in eight Iranian news outlets—Fars News Agency, Iran Daily, ISNA, Tehran Times, Financial Tribune, Goya News, Tasnim, and IRNA—is indexed in the altmetrics.com database, accounting for approximately 0.1% of the media coverage on this platform. A total of 2,972 news articles from Iranian media are included in the altmetrics.com database. An examination of the types of sources reviewed reveals that Iranian news media have primarily extracted and published information from scientific journal articles, totaling 2,790 articles, or 93.88%. An analysis of the thematic coverage of these news sources indicates that out of 2,777 categorized publications, nearly one-third pertain to medical and health sciences, comprising 884 publications, or 31.83%. An analysis of the sources cited in Iranian news media reveals that science journalists in Iran tend to select topics from multidisciplinary sources. Prominent journals such as *Science* and *Nature* are among the leading references for Iranian news outlets. Furthermore, an examination of the organizational affiliations of the articles referenced in the news indicates that out of a total of 2,687 articles, only 198 (equivalent to 0.07%) were authored by researchers affiliated with Iranian universities. Science journalists in the country predominantly feature articles affiliated with the United States, with researchers from the University of Tehran receiving the most coverage among Iranian universities. An analysis of the publication dates of news articles recorded in the altmetrics.com database reveals that the highest number of indexed news articles—624 articles, accounting for 21%—was published in 2019. However, the trend of indexing news from Iranian media in the altmetrics.com database has declined since 2020.Conclusion: The declining trend in the indexing of Iranian news media in the alt-metrics.com database over the past three years suggests that science journalists should place greater emphasis on research findings published in reputable scientific articles and journals when reporting on science news. Furthermore, the style of writing and coverage should be tailored to ensure that it can be easily identified and displayed in databases like altmetrics.com and other similar indexing platforms. The current performance of journalists and news media indicates that a substantial number of news articles reference research findings published in scientific journals (2,790 articles, or 93.88%). It is important to recognize that scientific articles are not confined to journals; they are also published in conference proceedings and various sections of books. Science journalists must be aware of these diverse sources. It is essential for science journalists to possess a comprehensive understanding of science, rather than confining their definition to specific fields such as medicine. Additionally, it is important to consider the interests of the public, as they are the readers of these news articles. Topics that resonate with the public should be prominently featured in scientific news coverage. Therefore, a science journalist must strike a balance between the credibility of the news source and the existing demand for it. The research findings in the section on the level of news coverage of domestic research indicate that, despite the high volume of scientific production in Iran, these publications have received minimal attention in the news media. The reasons for this phenomenon can be examined from two perspectives. Firstly, the findings suggest that scientific publications from the United States have received the most significant coverage in Iranian news media, which may indicate the dominance of translation in science journalism. In this manner, research findings from other countries, as reported by reputable news outlets such as CNN and BBC, are translated and published by Iranian science journalists. Additionally, the weak connection between universities and academics—who are the producers of scientific knowledge—and the news media results in a lack of awareness among science journalists regarding trends in domestic research.

Introduction. With the surge of data in today's information landscape, transforming this data into actionable knowledge has become increasingly difficult. Tracking and analyzing scientific literature effectively is essential. This study compiles an altmetric list of the 50 most-cited articles on social media and healthcare, aiming to identify critical research and assess its impact on current healthcare trends. Methods. The analysis focused on the terms "Social Media Platforms" and "Healthcare" using the Altmetric database. Articles were ranked by altmetric mentions and analyzed with Microsoft Excel. Data visualization was facilitated through tables, graphs, and keyword graphical visualization using VOSviewer. Results. Key aspects identified include the impact of social media on mental health, medical misinformation, the role of social media in public health communication, and its effects on user behavior. The analysis revealed an average altmetrics score (AAS) of 433.58, with scores ranging from 49 to 4,493. The United States and Great Britain were prominent in the most-cited publications. Leading journals included the Journal of Medical Internet Research and PLOS ONE. Primary themes were mental health, health misinformation, public health, social media behavior, and specific health issues. The Spearman correlation between citations and the altmetric index was rs = 0.369 (p < 0.05), indicating a moderate positive relationship. Conclusion. Altmetric analysis is a valuable complement to traditional bibliometric methods, helping to identify emerging trends and challenges in social media data use. Recommendations include revising analytical approaches and implementing measures to enhance data reliability.

Background The EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index is a value-based, multi-component metric framework to assess the impact of medical publications in terms of relevance to different stakeholders. It comprises three component scores (social, scholarly and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics that indicate a different aspect of engagement with the publication. Here, we present an exploratory investigation of whether publication types or disease indications influence EMPIRE Index scores. Methods Article-level metrics were extracted and EMPIRE Index scores were calculated for 5825 journal articles published from 1 May 2017 to 1 May 2018, representing 12 disease indications (chosen to reflect a wide variety of common and rare diseases with a variety of aetiologies) and five publication types. Results There were significant differences in scores between article types and disease indications. Median (95% CI) social and scholarly impact scores ranged from 1.2 (0.3–1.6) to 4.8 (3.1–6.6), respectively, for phase 3 clinical trials, and from 0.3 (0.3–0.4) to 2.3 (1.9–2.6), respectively, for observational studies. Social and scholarly impact scores were highest for multiple sclerosis publications and lowest for non-small cell lung cancer publications. Systematic reviews achieved greater impact than regular reviews. Median trends in the social impact of different disease areas matched the level of public interest as assessed through Google search interest. Although most articles did not register societal impact, mean societal impact scores were highest for migraine publications. Conclusions The EMPIRE Index successfully identified differences in impact by disease area and publication type, which supports the notion that the impact of each publication needs to be evaluated in the context of these factors, and potentially others. These findings should be considered when using the EMPIRE Index to assess publication impact.

Many researchers have examined citation-altmetric associations producing a wide range of observations. The negative and positive associations between these two metrics at various correlation levels create controversy in considering these metrics as replacements or complements for the research impact measurement. Very few studies tried to clarify this controversy by venturing into systematic analysis. Thus, the present study aims to find a solution by using meta-analysis to measure the Pooled Correlation Coefficient (PCOR) between the classic metric indicators and X metrics. Eligible articles for the analysis were chosen through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Majorly Dimesions.ai, ResearchGate, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched and 10 articles were found eligible and selected for the analysis. The investigated articles showed positive and negative correlations between classic and X metrics ranging from -0.04 to 0.68. These articles were subjected to meta-analysis using the Random Effect Model (REM). The study found that the articles’ PCOR was positive and measured at 0.18. Thus, the X metric complements the classic metrics for the quick Library and Information Science (LIS) research impact measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Science journalists can play a significant role in evaluating the social impact and "altmetric" score of research published in scientific journals through their coverage in news media. This requires the indexing of news articles in altmetric databases. The present study aims to investigate the performance of Iranian science journalists in the Altmetric.com database by analyzing indexed news articles from Iranian news media. Methodology: The data necessary for conducting this research were collected in two main stages from three databases: Altmetric.com, JCR, and Scopus. In the first stage, a dataset containing 2,972 news articles that mentioned research outputs from Iranian news media was downloaded from Altmetric.com. Next, the impact factors of the journals cited in the news articles were extracted from the JCR database. In the final stage, the list of DOIs for the research articles referenced in the news, available in the downloaded file from the previous stage, was combined using the OR operator, and a search was conducted in the advanced search section of Scopus. Findings: The research results show that content published in eight Iranian news outlets—Fars News Agency, Iran Daily, ISNA, Tehran Times, Financial Tribune, Goya News, Tasnim, and IRNA—is indexed in the altmetrics.com database, accounting for approximately 0.1% of the media coverage on this platform. A total of 2,972 news articles from Iranian media are included in the altmetrics.com database. An examination of the types of sources reviewed reveals that Iranian news media have primarily extracted and published information from scientific journal articles, totaling 2,790 articles, or 93.88%. An analysis of the thematic coverage of these news sources indicates that out of 2,777 categorized publications, nearly one-third pertain to medical and health sciences, comprising 884 publications, or 31.83%. An analysis of the sources cited in Iranian news media reveals that science journalists in Iran tend to select topics from multidisciplinary sources. Prominent journals such as *Science* and *Nature* are among the leading references for Iranian news outlets. Furthermore, an examination of the organizational affiliations of the articles referenced in the news indicates that out of a total of 2,687 articles, only 198 (equivalent to 0.07%) were authored by researchers affiliated with Iranian universities. Science journalists in the country predominantly feature articles affiliated with the United States, with researchers from the University of Tehran receiving the most coverage among Iranian universities. An analysis of the publication dates of news articles recorded in the altmetrics.com database reveals that the highest number of indexed news articles—624 articles, accounting for 21%—was published in 2019. However, the trend of indexing news from Iranian media in the altmetrics.com database has declined since 2020. Conclusion: The declining trend in the indexing of Iranian news media in the alt-metrics.com database over the past three years suggests that science journalists should place greater emphasis on research findings published in reputable scientific articles and journals when reporting on science news. Furthermore, the style of writing and coverage should be tailored to ensure that it can be easily identified and displayed in databases like altmetrics.com and other similar indexing platforms. The current performance of journalists and news media indicates that a substantial number of news articles reference research findings published in scientific journals (2,790 articles, or 93.88%). It is important to recognize that scientific articles are not confined to journals; they are also published in conference proceedings and various sections of books. Science journalists must be aware of these diverse sources. It is essential for science journalists to possess a comprehensive understanding of science, rather than confining their definition to specific fields such as medicine. Additionally, it is important to consider the interests of the public, as they are the readers of these news articles. Topics that resonate with the public should be prominently featured in scientific news coverage. Therefore, a science journalist must strike a balance between the credibility of the news source and the existing demand for it. The research findings in the section on the level of news coverage of domestic research indicate that, despite the high volume of scientific production in Iran, these publications have received minimal attention in the news media. The reasons for this phenomenon can be examined from two perspectives. Firstly, the findings suggest that scientific publications from the United States have received the most significant coverage in Iranian news media, which may indicate the dominance of translation in science journalism. In this manner, research findings from other countries, as reported by reputable news outlets such as CNN and BBC, are translated and published by Iranian science journalists. Additionally, the weak connection between universities and academics—who are the producers of scientific knowledge—and the news media results in a lack of awareness among science journalists regarding trends in domestic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary objective of this investigation is to conduct a comprehensive assessment of research outputs in the field of clinical psychology using both bibliometric and altmetric approaches. A list of 179 clinical psychology journals was obtained from the Journal Citation Report (JCR) within the Web of Science (WoS). Altmetric indicators for each journal were then gathered from Altmetric.com, with data available for 162 out of the 179 journals. Simultaneously, a collection of highly cited documents published in WoS-indexed journals from 2018 to 2022 was compiled from Scopus. Altmetric data for these highly cited documents (n = 528) were retrieved from Altmetric.com. Additionally, a detailed analysis was conducted on the topics of highly cited documents, focusing on keywords present in their titles. The study revealed that higher impact journals generally exhibit superior altmetric performance, with Psychological Medicine journal displaying broader coverage across various social media platforms. Document-level analysis indicated that, while editorials and notes garner greater citation and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), the citation and AAS differences across article, and review document types were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the study identified a declining trend in AAS from 2018 to 2022. Notably, documents published in 2021 and 2019 had higher median news mentions and X mentions, respectively. In exploring the topics of highly cited documents in clinical psychology, the study found a decreasing coverage of prevalent mental disorders from 2018 to 2022. Specifically, documents related to anxiety disorders and eating disorders exhibited higher citation and altmetric attention, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the open science environment, this article evaluates the discourse power of academic journals from the perspective of multiple integration. It is conducive to scientific research management and provides a reference for enriching and perfecting the evaluation theory and indicators system of academic journals. Based on the theory of evaluation science, discourse power theory and communication theory, first, this article discusses the basic issues of the discourse power evaluation for academic journals. It defines the academic discourse power and the discourse power of academic journals. It is proposed that the discourse power of academic journals is composed of discourse influence and discourse leading. Discourse influence is composed of discourse influence ability and discourse power, and discourse leading is composed of social media discourse, news and policy discourse, encyclopaedia discourse, peer-review discourse and video discourse leading. This article explores the formation process and operation mechanism of the discourse power for academic journals. Then, this article constructs the discourse power evaluation model of academic journals. Second, this article integrates multi-source heterogeneous data, then adopts correlation analysis, integrated factor analysis, entropy weight method, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) method and two-dimensional four-quadrant mapping method to conduct empirical research on the discourse power evaluation of Medicine, General and Internal journals from the perspectives of multi-dimensions, multi-factors, multi-indicators and multi-methods fusion. The results show that the research on the discourse power evaluation for academic journals based on the theory, method and application logic is practical, comprehensive and reliable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The proliferation of online self‐archiving platforms has greatly facilitated the dissemination of new research findings. However, the extent to which these platforms have increased the impact of research remains uncertain, especially considering the potential bias of researchers favoring the deposition of higher‐quality preprints. To determine the causal relationship between self‐archiving platforms and research impact, we conducted an investigation using a sample of 5423 published articles from 2018 that had preprints deposited on bioRxiv. These articles were compared to a control group of 7862 similar articles without preprints, identified through text‐mining algorithms. By modeling the differences in forward citations over time between the two groups, we established a positive causal effect of self‐archiving platforms on research impact. However, the effect observed in this study was smaller than that reported in previous studies (18.7% vs. 36%), indicating a more accurate and unbiased result. Additionally, the study explored the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the enhancement of research impact, including early dissemination and increased exposure through social networks facilitated by self‐archiving platforms. Overall, this study expands our understanding of how research is disseminated in the era of Internet platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The emergence of ChatGPT in the education literature represents a transformative phase in educational technology research, marked by a surge in publications driven by initial research interest in new topics and media hype. While these publications highlight ChatGPT's potential in education, concerns arise regarding their quality, methodology, and uniqueness. Objective: Our study employs unconventional methods by combining altmetrics and bibliometrics to explore ChatGPT in education comprehensively. Methods: Two scholarly databases, Web of Science and Altmetric, were adopted to retrieve publications with citations and those mentioned on social media, respectively. We used a search query, "ChatGPT," and set the publication date between November 30th, 2022, and August 31st, 2023. Both datasets were within the education‐related domains. Through a filtering process, we identified three publication categories: 49 papers with both altmetrics and citations, 60 with altmetrics only, and 66 with citations only. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on all three lists of papers, further dividing the entire collection into three distinct periods. All the selected papers underwent detailed coding regarding open access, paper types, subject domains, and learner levels. Furthermore, we analysed the keywords occurring and visualized clusters of the co‐occurring keywords. Results and Conclusions: An intriguing finding is the significant correlation between media/social media mentions and academic citations in ChatGPT in education papers, underscoring the transformative potential of ChatGPT and the urgency of its incorporation into practice. Our keyword analysis also reveals distinctions between the themes of the papers that received both mentions and citations and those that received only citations but no mentions. Additionally, we noticed a limitation that authors' choice of keywords might be influenced by individual subjective judgements, potentially skewing results in thematic analysis based solely on author‐assigned keywords such as keyword co‐occurrence analysis. Henceforth, we advocate for developing a standardized keyword taxonomy in the educational technology field and integrating Large Language Models to enhance keyword analysis in altmetric and bibliometric tools. This study reveals that ChatGPT in education literature is evolving from rapid publication to rigorous research. Lay Description: What is currently known about this topic?: ChatGPT in education has seen a surge in publications driven by media hype.Early publications tend to lack rigour and reiterate known advantages/disadvantages.Literature reviews on ChatGPT in education have limitations in scope and depth.Some studies have explored altmetrics and bibliometrics in other fields. What does this paper add?: Combines altmetrics and bibliometrics to analyse publications of ChatGPT in education.Addresses challenges in the discourse by offering unconventional analysis methods.Identifies publication trends and investigates the relationship between media attention and citations.Determines key themes in the literature through keyword co‐occurrence analysis. Implications for practice/or policy: Expectations of continued growth in ChatGPT literature but with evolving publication trends.Distinctive characteristics of ChatGPT in education challenge keyword analysis.Proposes the development of a unified keyword taxonomy for clarity in the field.Suggests enhancing altmetrics and bibliometrics tools using Large Language Models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation scores (CS) have been traditionally used to measure the impact of scientific publications. Sourced from the Internet, Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) are complementary metrics that assess how often publications are discussed and used globally. We compared by rank the top 500 papers by CS and AAS published in Clinical Nutrition with corresponding AAS and CS. A search for all publications in Clinical Nutrition was performed on Dimensions (https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication) on 3rd April 2024. Outputs were ranked according to CS and then by AAS with the top 500 in each category selected. Scores, year and type of publication were recorded. Correlation was expressed as the Spearman's rank coefficient (ϱ). We identified 18,790 outputs. Within the top 500 publications ranked by CS, there was a significant weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.235, P < 0.0001) between CS [median (IQR) 149 (116–223)] and AAS [7 (3–22)]. Ranked by AAS, there was a non-significant very weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.072, P = 0.106) between AAS [55.5 (36–115)] and CS [42 (16.5–94.5)]. Trends remained similar when grouped by publication type. Guidelines, ranked by CS, had the highest CS and ranked by AAS, the highest CS and AAS. Publications per year, by year, ranked by CS, had a negatively skewed distribution peaking in 2012 and declined thereafter, but when ranked by AAS, had a moderately positive linear trend from 2001 to 2024 (ϱ = 0.513, P < 0.0001). Correlation between CS and AAS was weak. Guidelines had the highest CS and AAS. CS are iterative taking years to mature while AAS are immediate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social media-based investor sentiment proxies provide a brand new solution to recognize and measure investor sentiment. Aggregating individual social media text sentiments into public sentiments through a specific aggregation method is a necessary part of constructing an investor sentiment index for social media. The choice or design of the aggregation method directly affects whether or not the researcher can capture the sentiment of the market. This study provides the first systematic review of mainstream methods for aggregating investor sentiment from social media. In addition, we systematically discuss some of the key issues of historical researchers in aggregating investor sentiment, such as neutral sentiment text, simple aggregation of directly aggregated text, etc. The findings suggest that the aggregation method used by researchers directly affects the reliability of investor sentiment indices. Therefore, scholars should carefully choose sentiment aggregation algorithms based on the combination of datasets and sentiment tracking tools and articulate their rationale. This study provides important references for behavioral finance, social media mining, and microinvestor sentiment metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) stands out as one of the most prominent international journals publishing research in esthetic dentistry. This study analyzed articles published by JERD since the year 2000 through bibliometric analysis. Methodology: The search was conducted in January 2024 using Scopus. The following data were extracted from the articles: citation count, year, language, access type, funding agency, study design, theme (general and specific), country, institution, authors, and keywords. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative network maps among the data. Dimensions were consulted to measure altmetric data. Google Trends was used to investigate the global popularity of JERD research. Results: A total of 1394 articles were included in this analysis. Citation count ranged from 0 to 625 (average: 16.9). Articles were published between 2000 and 2023. Laboratory studies were more prevalent (n = 850), with the most investigated general theme being restorative procedures (n = 882), and the highlighted specific theme being the use of composite resin (n = 327). The United States had the highest number of articles (n = 640), with the diverse distribution among other countries. The most common keyword was "cad/cam" (n = 63). VOSviewer demonstrated high collaboration among countries. Intense mentions were identified primarily on Facebook. According to Google Trends, Egypt was the country that searched for JERD the most. Conclusions: JERD exhibited significant growth in the number of published articles and their diversity by topics, types, origin (country), number of citations, and impact factor. Clinical Significance: The JERD is a journal that publishes studies influencing clinical practice. Identifying the key characteristics of this journal is essential for charting future paths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper aims to analyze the relationships between discourse leading indicators and citations from perspectives of integrating altmetrics indicators and tries to provide references for comprehending the quantitative indicators of scientific communication in the era of open science, constructing the evaluation indicator system of the discourse leading for academic journals and then improving the discourse leading of academic journals. Design/methodology/approach: Based on the theory of communication and the new pattern of scientific communication, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. This paper obtains 874,119 citations and 6,378,843 altmetrics indicators data from 65 international multidisciplinary academic journals. The relationships between indicators of discourse leading (altmetrics) and citations are studied by using descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis, principal component analysis, negative binomial regression analysis and marginal effects analysis. Meanwhile, the connotation and essential characteristics of the indicators, the strength and influence of the relationships are further analyzed and explored. It is proposed that academic journals' discourse leading is composed of news discourse leading, social media discourse leading, peer review discourse leading, encyclopedic discourse leading, video discourse leading and policy discourse leading. Findings: It is discovered that the 15 altmetrics indicators data have a low degree of centralization to the center and a high degree of polarization dispersion overall; their distribution patterns do not follow the normal distributions, and their distributions have the characteristics of long-tailed right-peaked curves. Overall, 15 indicators show positive correlations and wide gaps exist in the number of mentions and coverage. The academic journals' discourse leading significantly affects total cites. When altmetrics indicators of international mainstream academic and social media platforms are used to explore the connotation and characteristics of academic journals' discourse leading, the influence or contribution of social media discourse, news discourse, video discourse, policy discourse, peer review discourse and encyclopedia discourse on the citations decreases in turn. Originality/value: This study is innovative from the academic journal level to analyze the deep relationships between altmetrics indicators and citations from the perspective of correlation. First, this paper explores the formation process of academic journals' discourse leading. Second, this paper integrates altmetrics indicators to study the correlation between discourse leading indicators and citations. This study will help to enrich and improve basic theoretical issues and indicators' composition, provide theoretical support for the construction of the discourse leading evaluation system for academic journals and provide ideas for the evaluation practice activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Altmetrics have led to new quantitative studies of science through social media interactions. However, there are no models of science communication that respond to the multiplicity of non-academic channels. Using the 3653 authors with the highest volume of altmetrics mentions from the main channels (Twitter, News, Facebook, Wikipedia, Blog, Policy documents, and Peer reviews) to their publications (2016-2020), it has been analyzed where the audiences of each discipline are located. The results evidence the generalities and specificities of these new communication models and the differences between areas. These findings are useful for the development of science communication policies and strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, refer to the newer kind of events around scholarly articles, such as the number of times the article is read, tweeted, mentioned in blog posts etc. These metrics have gained a lot of popularity during last few years and are now being collected and used in several ways, ranging from early measure of article impact to a potential indicator of societal relevance of research. However, there are several studies which have cautioned about use of altmetrics on account of quality and reliability of altmetric data, as they may be more prone to manipulations and artificial inflations. This study proposes a framework based on application of Benford's Law to evaluate the quality of altmetric data. A large sized altmetric data sample is considered and the fits with Benford's Law are computed. The analysis is performed by doing plots of the empirical data distributions and the theoretical Benford's, and by employing relevant statistical measures and tests. Results for fit on first and second leading digit of altmetric data show conformity to Benford's distribution. To further explore the usefulness of the framework, the altmetric data is subjected to artificial manipulations through a systematic process and the fits to Benford's law are reassessed to see if there are distortions. The results and analysis suggest that Benford's Law based framework can be used to test the quality of altmetric data. Relevant implications of the research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social media usage, particularly Twitter, among scientists in academia has increased in recent years. However, Twitters use in scholarly post-publication dissemination of orthopaedic research and musculoskeletal advocacy remains low. To enhance usage of Twitter among musculoskeletal researchers, this article reviews data supporting the professional benefits of using the platform to disseminate scholarly works. Next, we provide a linear workflow for Tweet curation, discuss the importance of data-driven decision making behind tweet curation and posting, and propose new guidelines for professional Twitter usage. Since this workflow may not eliminate all the identified barriers and new institutionalized shifts in policies regarding curation and consumption of social media on Twitter, we also briefly introduce and explore using other social media platforms. We hope this information will be persuasive and compelling to those in the orthopedic research field and be broadly applicable to others in related scientific fields who wish to disseminate findings and engage a public audience on social media. In addition, we encourage the Orthopedic Research Society (ORS) and Journal of Orthopedic Research (JOR) communities to take advantage of the many tools curated by the Wiley editorial office and the ORS social media committee to increase dissemination of their scholarly works online. Twitter and social media can assist in accomplishing our mission of creating a world without musculoskeletal limitations via the timely dissemination of orthopedic information. However, this can only be accomplished if the orthopedic research community has a unified and strong online presence actively engaged in orthopaedic research findings and news.

Background The EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index is a value-based, multi-component metric framework to assess the impact of medical publications in terms of relevance to different stakeholders. It comprises three component scores (social, scholarly and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics that indicate a different aspect of engagement with the publication. Here, we present an exploratory investigation of whether publication types or disease indications influence EMPIRE Index scores. Methods Article-level metrics were extracted and EMPIRE Index scores were calculated for 5825 journal articles published from 1 May 2017 to 1 May 2018, representing 12 disease indications (chosen to reflect a wide variety of common and rare diseases with a variety of aetiologies) and five publication types. Results There were significant differences in scores between article types and disease indications. Median (95% CI) social and scholarly impact scores ranged from 1.2 (0.3–1.6) to 4.8 (3.1–6.6), respectively, for phase 3 clinical trials, and from 0.3 (0.3–0.4) to 2.3 (1.9–2.6), respectively, for observational studies. Social and scholarly impact scores were highest for multiple sclerosis publications and lowest for non-small cell lung cancer publications. Systematic reviews achieved greater impact than regular reviews. Median trends in the social impact of different disease areas matched the level of public interest as assessed through Google search interest. Although most articles did not register societal impact, mean societal impact scores were highest for migraine publications. Conclusions The EMPIRE Index successfully identified differences in impact by disease area and publication type, which supports the notion that the impact of each publication needs to be evaluated in the context of these factors, and potentially others. These findings should be considered when using the EMPIRE Index to assess publication impact.

Las nuevas tecnologías digitales han modificado sustancialmente la forma en la cual se comunica el conocimiento científico. Este trabajo se propone evaluar el impacto de la implementación de un plan de comunicación sociodigital para la revista Arqueología (Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires), diseñado para favorecer la diseminación y el alcance de los contenidos publicados a través del ecosistema digital. Para ello se realizó una propuesta metodológica a fin de evaluar su visibilidad en las redes sociales, el comportamiento de los usuarios en la página web y el impacto de los contenidos publicados durante el período 2018-2022, a partir de distintos indicadores altmétricos y bibliométricos. Como resultado se constató que los efectos de la pandemia, así como la ejecución de una estrategia de difusión, aumentaron la visibilidad de la publicación en redes sociales, generando un incremento en la cantidad de visualizaciones y descargas de los artículos. Estos hallazgos subrayan la relevancia de considerar diversas dimensiones de interacción en línea para comprender el impacto académico de las investigaciones científicas = New digital technologies have modified the way scientific knowledge is being communicated. This work intends to evaluate the impact of a socio-digital communication plan implemented for the journal Arqueología (Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires), designed to boost the distribution and outreach of published content in the digital ecosystem. We proposed a method to evaluate the journal’s visibility in social networks, website user behavior and the impact of the published content from 2018 to 2022, based on different altmetric and bibliometric indicators. The results of said analysis show that the effects of the pandemic coupled with the implementation of a dissemination strategy increased the journal’s visibility in social networks, which in turn produced an increase in the number of views and downloads of its papers. These findings highlight the importance of considering various types of online interaction to better understand the academic impact of scientific research.

In this study, we aimed to comprehensively analyze the altmetric indices of 1000 highly cited articles in the field of cancer, considering the growing importance of social media-based indicators as complementary tools alongside traditional bibliometric indicators for evaluating scientific outputs. Cancer research is a critical area in the medical community, being the second leading cause of death after cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Conducted as a cross-sectional descriptive study, the bibliographic information of the research sample was obtained from the Scopus citation database. Data about the social media presence and altmetric attention scores (AAS) of each article were collected from the journal and altmetric.com. Subsequently, Excel and SPSS software were employed for analysis. Among the reviewed articles, 96.3% were shared on social media at least once, with Mendeley (99.6%), Patents (86.3%), and CiteULike (66.3%) being the most commonly used altmetric sources. The article titled "Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks," published in the Nature journal, obtained the highest AAS of 2864. Additionally, the majority of tweeters and readers were from the USA. Tweeters were predominantly members of the public, while readers were primarily professionals in medicine and dentistry, including PhD students. Spearman tests indicated a statistically significant moderate correlation between AASs and citations (r= 0.283, p-value< 0.001). Similarly, a significant weak correlation was observed between the journals' Impact Factor (IF) (r= 0.217) and CiteScore (r= 0.133) with the number of citations (p-value < 0.001). The findings of this study emphasize the positive impact of social media-based indicators on the number of citations received by scientific articles, making them valuable complementary measures alongside traditional citation indicators for evaluating research impact. We recommend that journals, authors, and researchers actively use social media platforms to enhance the visibility of their work and attract more citations.

Background The EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index is a value-based, multi-component metric framework to assess the impact of medical publications in terms of relevance to different stakeholders. It comprises three component scores (social, scholarly and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics that indicate a different aspect of engagement with the publication. Here, we present an exploratory investigation of whether publication types or disease indications influence EMPIRE Index scores. Methods Article-level metrics were extracted and EMPIRE Index scores were calculated for 5825 journal articles published from 1 May 2017 to 1 May 2018, representing 12 disease indications (chosen to reflect a wide variety of common and rare diseases with a variety of aetiologies) and five publication types. Results There were significant differences in scores between article types and disease indications. Median (95% CI) social and scholarly impact scores ranged from 1.2 (0.3–1.6) to 4.8 (3.1–6.6), respectively, for phase 3 clinical trials, and from 0.3 (0.3–0.4) to 2.3 (1.9–2.6), respectively, for observational studies. Social and scholarly impact scores were highest for multiple sclerosis publications and lowest for non-small cell lung cancer publications. Systematic reviews achieved greater impact than regular reviews. Median trends in the social impact of different disease areas matched the level of public interest as assessed through Google search interest. Although most articles did not register societal impact, mean societal impact scores were highest for migraine publications. Conclusions The EMPIRE Index successfully identified differences in impact by disease area and publication type, which supports the notion that the impact of each publication needs to be evaluated in the context of these factors, and potentially others. These findings should be considered when using the EMPIRE Index to assess publication impact.

Altmetrics are an emerging form of bibliometric measurement that capture the online dimension of scholarly exchange. Against the backdrop of both a higher education landscape increasingly focused on quantifying research productivity and impact, as well as literature emphasising the need to address gender bias in the discipline, we consider whether and how altmetrics (re)produce gendered dynamics in political science. Using a novel dataset on the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) of political science research, we investigate two questions: Do AAS vary by gender? And how do AAS relate to gendered social media dynamics? We find that AAS reproduce gendered dynamics found in disciplinary publication and citation practices. For example, journal articles authored exclusively by female scholars score 27% lower on average than exclusively male-authored outputs. However, men are also more likely to write articles with an AAS of zero. These patterns are shaped by the presence of high-scoring male "superstars" whose research attracts much online attention. Complementing existing scholarship, we show that the AAS closely overlaps with virality dynamics on Twitter. We suggest that these gendered dynamics may be hidden behind the seemingly neutral, technical character of altmetrics, which is worrisome where they are used to evaluate scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the correlation of ResearchGate among the faculties of sciences in the central universities of North-East India using Altmetrics approaches. As more innovation is seen and the discipline is in its early stages, the Department of Biotechnology and Microbiology is the primary study area. The study focuses primarily on faculty activities on the ResearchGate platform, which include frequency of publications, citations, research interest, number of followers and followings, and various publication formats. It has also sparked interest in determining the relationships between different ResearchGate metrics. According to the study, most faculties have good citation scores and an average number of publications. The survey analysis reveals a lack of awareness, concentration, and dedication to the development of the disciplines. The result of the investigation shall serve as a pathway for various future goals for selfimprovement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New digital technologies have modified the way scientific knowledge is being communicated. This work intends to evaluate the impact of a socio-digital communication plan implemented for the journal Arqueología (Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires), designed to boost the distribution and outreach of published content in the digital ecosystem. We proposed a method to evaluate the journal's visibility in social networks, website user behavior and the impact of the published content from 2018 to 2022, based on different altmetric and bibliometric indicators. The results of said analysis show that the effects of the pandemic coupled with the implementation of a dissemination strategy increased the journal's visibility in social networks, which in turn produced an increase in the number of views and downloads of its papers. These findings highlight the importance of considering various types of online interaction to better understand the academic impact of scientific research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores current research trends in environmental studies, emphasizing the importance of addressing climate change through effective strategies and highlighting the crucial role of circular economy principles and resource management in achieving sustainability goals. It aims to investigate emerging patterns and analyze the altmetric impact of published research in the field of environment and pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR), a research journal published by Springer since January 1994, serves as a cornerstone for scholarly discourse in this field. The first volume of ESPR was released in January 1994, and since then, all of the information has been indexed by significant databases like OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service, SCOPUS, and DIMENSIONS, amongst others. ESPR is one of the leading journals with a five-year impact factor of 5.4 and 1.01 SJR Q1 quartile as of 2023, with an h-index of 179. The journal has published influential articles that garnered high altmetric scores, indicating online attention and engagement, although there is a notable disparity between altmetric scores and total citations. Most of the highly cited articles cover various topics, including eutrophication, electrochemical advanced oxidation processes, insecticides, and phytoremediation. Most publications fall under environmental sciences, followed by pollution and contamination. Chinese institutions have substantially contributed to the journal, indicating a strong emphasis on environmental and pollution research in China. Our findings reveal significant growth in publication output and citation rates, alongside a notable disparity between traditional citation metrics and altmetrics, underscoring the need for comprehensive impact assessment methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Assessing the quality of scientific publications accurately and objectively is critical. This study analyzes the most cited articles on cochlear implants using altmetrics (alternative metrics) and traditional metrics. Materials and Methods: A basic search was conducted in the Web of Science database using the term “cochlear implant.” The analysis included the year of publication, years since publication, number of citations, and average number of citations per year for each publication. Additionally, the impact factor (IF), 5-year IF, Q category of the journals, and altmetric scores (ASs) were evaluated. Results: ASs showed significant correlations with the number of citations, IF, 5-year IF, and publication year. Notably, open-access articles constituted 68% of the total. However, no significant differences were observed between open-access and nonopen-access articles concerning citations (p=0.489) or ASs (p=0.735), respectively. Conclusion: Although altmetrics are currently viewed as complementary to traditional metrics, it exhibits potential for increased importance over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the altmetrics landscape from 2012 to 2024, aiming to explore key trends, influential contributors, and thematic concentrations in scholarly discourse. The Bibliometrix package in R made it easy to conduct a bibliometric study on altmetrics using data extracted from Scopus. This allowed for an in-depth examination of publication trends, influential authors, and thematic concentrations. VOSviewer was used to visualize bibliometric data, which gave information about co-authorship networks and thematic clustering in the altmetrics literature. The United States emerged as the foremost contributor in terms of publication frequency. Key words such as "bibliometrics," "social media," and "journal impact factor" were identified as central themes in the altmetrics discourse, reflecting the multidimensional nature of scholarly evaluation in the digital age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aims to measure the occurrence of videos cited in the research publications by Indian researchers. More specifically, we investigated the videos associated with scholarly publications and analysed the usefulness of those videos using computational methods. The bibliographic metadata was gathered from Scopus using advanced search techniques. A total of 2,121 publications cited 3,191 online videos during 2008-2022, but 2,736 videos were considered for further analysis due to discrepancies in video IDs. The Google API for YouTube was used to extract video metadata from YouTube, and the raw data was edited and extracted using OpenRefine, an open-source data carpentry tool. The final dataset was analysed and visualised using the R program. The result indicates a linear growth of cited videos from 2008-2018; an exponential increase is observed from 2019 onwards. Most videos are cited from the Computer Science and Social Science disciplines, and journal articles are the most preferred document types that mention videos. The Education category videos are cited the most, and the channel TEDx Talks produced the maximum number of cited videos in research publications. The overall study shows that YouTube is emerging as a significant source of information for research and educational purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]