Online Attention to Cochlear Implant Research: Altmetric and Bibliometric Analysis

Year 2024, Volume: 34 Issue: 2, 30 - 36, 10.06.2024

Deniz Tuz , Erva Değirmenci Uzun

https://doi.org/10.26650/Tr-ENT.2024.1402073

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Audiology, cochlear implants, bibliometrics, social media, altmetric

References

• Collins CS, Singh NP, Ananthasekar S, Boyd CJ, Brabston E, King TW. The Correlation between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Orthopaedic Literature. J Surg Res 2021;268:705-11. google scholar
• Chang J, Desai N, Gosain A. Correlation between altmetric score and citations in pediatric surgery core journals. J Surg Res 2019;243:52-8. google scholar
• Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. (2010), Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (viewed February 16, 2021). google scholar
• Melero R. Altmetrics-a complement to conventional metrics. Biochem Med 2015;25(2):152-60. google scholar
• Nicholson N, Smith SL. How to document scientific and clinical impact of research: Six steps to success. ASHA Perspectives 2022;7(3):679-95. google scholar
• Puschmann C. (Micro)Blogging Science? Notes on Potentials and Constraints of New Forms of Scholarly Communication. In: Bartling, S, Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science. Springer, Cham. 2014; 89-106. google scholar
• Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff 2009;28(2):361-8. google scholar
• Gordon D. 1 In 10 Americans Turn To Social Media For Health Information, New Survey Shows 2021. https://www.forbes. com/sites/debgordon/2021/10/06/1-in-10-americans-turn-to-social-media-for-health-information-new-survey-shows/?sh=339b92e3d934. google scholar
• Crowson MG, Tucci DL, Kaylie D. Hearing loss on social media: Who is winning hearts and minds? Laryngoscope 2018;128(6):1453-61. google scholar
• Maggio LA, Leroux TC, Meyer HS, Artino Jr AR. #MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education. Perspect Med Educ 2018;7(4):239-47. google scholar
• Nocera AP, Boyd CJ, Boudreau H, Hakim O, Rais-Bahrami S. Examining the correlation between altmetric score and citations in the urology literature. Urology 2019;134:45-50. google scholar
• Boyd CJ, Ananthasekar S, Kurapati S, King TW. Examining the correlation between altmetric score and citations in the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;146(6):808e-15e. google scholar
• Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Rep 2014;15(12):1228-32. google scholar
• Levy J. Social media for scientists. Nat Cell Biol 2018;20:1329. google scholar
• DeAtkine AB, Grayson JW, Singh NP, Nocera AP, Rais-Bahrami S, Greene BJ. # ENT: Otolaryngology residency programs create social media platforms to connect with applicants during COVID-19 pandemic. Ear, Nose Throat J 2023;102(1):35-9. google scholar
• Kunze KN, Vadhera A, Purbey R, Singh H, Kazarian GS, Chahla J. Infographics are more effective at increasing social media attention in comparison with original research articles: an altmetrics-based analysis. Arthroscopy 2021;37(8):2591-7. google scholar
• Krittanawong C, Narasimhan B, Virk HUH, Narasimhan H, Hahn J, Wang Z, et al. Misinformation dissemination in twitter in the COVID-19 era. Am J Med 2020;133(12):1367-9. google scholar
• Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Downing J, Seguı' FL. COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(5):e19458. google scholar
• Antelman K. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries 2004;65(5):372-82. google scholar
• Harnad S, Brody T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. Dlib Mag 2004;10(6):1-3. google scholar
• Silva DdO, Taborda B, Pazzinatto MF, Ardern CL, Barton CJ. The altmetric score has a stronger relationship with article citations than journal impact factor and open access status: a cross-sectional analysis of 4022 sport sciences articles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):536-41. google scholar
• Patel RB, Vaduganathan M, Bhatt DL, Bonow RO. Characterizing high-performing articles by Altmetric score in major cardiovascular journals. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3(12):1249-51. google scholar
• Santos R, Ursu O, Gaulton A, Bento AP, Donadi RS, Bologa CG, et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2017;16(1):19-34. google scholar
• Schenone M, Dancık V, Wagner BK, Clemons PA. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 2013;9(4):232-40. google scholar
• Pendlebury DA. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 2009;57(1):1-11. google scholar
• Joshi MA. Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientific publications. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2):258. google scholar
• Zhan YX, Tritz D, Natarajan K, Som M, Vassar M. Evaluation of articles in metabolism research on the basis of their citations. Biochem Med 2021;31(1):9-14. google scholar
• Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. The” impact factor” revisited. Biomed Digit Lib 2005;2(1):1-8. google scholar
• Paulus FM, Cruz N, Krach S. The impact factor fallacy. Front Psychol 2018;9:1487. google scholar
• Juyal D, Thawani V, Sayana A, Pal S. Impact factor: Mutation, manipulation, and distortion. J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8(11):3475. google scholar
• Chien TW, Wang HY, Kan WC, Su SB. Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display: a bibliometric analysis. Medicine 2019;98(43):1-11. google scholar
• Rogers LF. Impact factor: the numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(3):541-2. google scholar
• Thelwall M. The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Schol Assess Rep 2020;2(1):2. google scholar
• Holmberg K, Bowman S, Bowman T, Didegah F, Kortelainen T. What is societal impact and where do Altmetrics fit into the equation? Altmetrics 2019;2(1):1-11. google scholar