What gives a stroke publication impact? Assessing traditional and alternative metrics of scientific impact for papers published in the journal Stroke

L. Wong, B. Drozdowska, Daniel J. Doherty, T. Quinn
{"title":"What gives a stroke publication impact? Assessing traditional and alternative metrics of scientific impact for papers published in the journal Stroke","authors":"L. Wong, B. Drozdowska, Daniel J. Doherty, T. Quinn","doi":"10.12688/AMRCOPENRES.12975.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The ‘impact’ of a scientific paper is a measure of influence in its field. In recent years, traditional, citation-based measures of impact have been complemented by Altmetrics, which quantify social media footprint. As authors and research institutions seek to increase their visibility both within and beyond the academic community, it is important to identify and compare the determinants of traditional and alternative metrics. We explored this using Stroke – a leading journal in its field. Methods: We described the impact of original research papers published in Stroke (2015-2016) using citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetrics). Using these two metrics as our outcomes, we assessed univariable and multivariable associations with 21 plausibly relevant publication features. We set the significance threshold at p<0.01. Results: Across 911 papers published in Stroke, there was an average citation count of 21.60 (±17.40) and Altmetric score of 17.99 (±47.37). The two impact measures were weakly correlated (r=0.15, p<0.001). Citations were independently associated with five publication features at a significance level of p<0.01: Time Since Publication (beta=0.87), Number of Authors (beta=0.22), Publication Type (beta=6.76), Number of Previous Publications (beta=0.01) and Editorial (beta=9.45). For Altmetrics, we observed a trend for independent associations with: Time Since Publication (beta=-0.25, p=0.02), Number of References (beta=0.32, p=0.02) and Country of Affiliation (beta=8.59, p=0.01). Our models explained 21% and 3% of variance in citations and Altmetrics, respectively. Conclusion: Papers published in Stroke have impact. Certain aspects of content and format may contribute to impact, but these differ for traditional measures and Altmetrics, and explain only a very modest proportion of variance in the latter. Citation counts and Altmetrics seem to represent different constructs and, therefore, should be used in conjunction to allow a more comprehensive assessment of publication impact.","PeriodicalId":72183,"journal":{"name":"AMRC open research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMRC open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/AMRCOPENRES.12975.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ‘impact’ of a scientific paper is a measure of influence in its field. In recent years, traditional, citation-based measures of impact have been complemented by Altmetrics, which quantify social media footprint. As authors and research institutions seek to increase their visibility both within and beyond the academic community, it is important to identify and compare the determinants of traditional and alternative metrics. We explored this using Stroke – a leading journal in its field. Methods: We described the impact of original research papers published in Stroke (2015-2016) using citation count and Altmetric Attention Score (Altmetrics). Using these two metrics as our outcomes, we assessed univariable and multivariable associations with 21 plausibly relevant publication features. We set the significance threshold at p<0.01. Results: Across 911 papers published in Stroke, there was an average citation count of 21.60 (±17.40) and Altmetric score of 17.99 (±47.37). The two impact measures were weakly correlated (r=0.15, p<0.001). Citations were independently associated with five publication features at a significance level of p<0.01: Time Since Publication (beta=0.87), Number of Authors (beta=0.22), Publication Type (beta=6.76), Number of Previous Publications (beta=0.01) and Editorial (beta=9.45). For Altmetrics, we observed a trend for independent associations with: Time Since Publication (beta=-0.25, p=0.02), Number of References (beta=0.32, p=0.02) and Country of Affiliation (beta=8.59, p=0.01). Our models explained 21% and 3% of variance in citations and Altmetrics, respectively. Conclusion: Papers published in Stroke have impact. Certain aspects of content and format may contribute to impact, but these differ for traditional measures and Altmetrics, and explain only a very modest proportion of variance in the latter. Citation counts and Altmetrics seem to represent different constructs and, therefore, should be used in conjunction to allow a more comprehensive assessment of publication impact.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是什么给中风的出版带来影响?评估发表在《中风》杂志上的论文的科学影响的传统和替代指标
背景:一篇科学论文的“影响”是衡量其在该领域的影响力。近年来,传统的基于引用的影响力衡量标准已经被Altmetrics所补充,后者量化了社交媒体足迹。随着作者和研究机构寻求在学术界内外增加他们的知名度,识别和比较传统和替代指标的决定因素是很重要的。我们通过《中风》(Stroke)杂志对此进行了探讨。《中风》是该领域的一本领先杂志。方法:我们使用引用计数和Altmetrics注意力评分(Altmetrics Attention Score)来描述发表在《Stroke》(2015-2016)上的原创研究论文的影响。使用这两个指标作为我们的结果,我们评估了单变量和多变量与21个看似相关的出版物特征的关联。我们将显著性阈值设为p<0.01。结果:在《Stroke》发表的911篇论文中,平均被引次数为21.60(±17.40)次,Altmetric评分为17.99(±47.37)次。两种影响指标呈弱相关(r=0.15, p<0.001)。引文与出版时间(beta=0.87)、作者数量(beta=0.22)、出版类型(beta=6.76)、先前出版物数量(beta=0.01)和社论(beta=9.45)这五个出版特征独立相关,显著性水平为p<0.01。对于Altmetrics,我们观察到独立关联的趋势:出版时间(beta=-0.25, p=0.02),参考文献数量(beta=0.32, p=0.02)和所属国家(beta=8.59, p=0.01)。我们的模型分别解释了引用数和Altmetrics中21%和3%的方差。结论:发表在《卒中》杂志上的论文具有一定的影响力。内容和格式的某些方面可能会对影响有所贡献,但这些对于传统度量和另类度量来说是不同的,并且在后者中只能解释非常适度的差异比例。引用计数和Altmetrics似乎代表了不同的结构,因此,应该结合使用,以便对发表影响进行更全面的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Creating connections: developing an online space for cross-regional mentorship and network building in the dementia research field. Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hospices: A systematic integrated review and synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice. Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] The dementia research career pipeline: Gender disparities in publication authorships and grant funding outcomes at different career stages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1