斜视研究的在线可见性和科学相关性:文献计量分析。

IF 1.9 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Interactive Journal of Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-06-12 DOI:10.2196/50698
Aleksander Stupnicki, Basil Suresh, Saurabh Jain
{"title":"斜视研究的在线可见性和科学相关性:文献计量分析。","authors":"Aleksander Stupnicki, Basil Suresh, Saurabh Jain","doi":"10.2196/50698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using \"strabismus\" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"e50698"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Aleksander Stupnicki, Basil Suresh, Saurabh Jain\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/50698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using \\\"strabismus\\\" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e50698\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208826/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/50698\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:鉴于互联网和社交媒体如今已成为医学知识的主要来源,在线科学数据的质量和准确性至关重要:本研究旨在分析斜视研究的科学相关性与网络知名度之间的关系,以回答以下问题:(1) 最受欢迎的斜视论文是否具有科学相关性?(2) 影响最大的斜视研究是否在网上得到了足够的共享?Altmetric Attention Score(AAS)被用作在线可见度的替代指标,而引用次数和期刊影响因子(IF)则被用作科学相关性的指标。以 "斜视 "为关键词,确定了 100 篇 AAS 最高的论文和 100 篇引用次数最高的论文。统计分析包括斯皮尔曼秩检验、线性回归和因子分析,以评估AAS、引文、期刊IF和18个Web 2.0平台的提及率之间的关系:结果:归一化 AAS 与归一化引文之间存在微弱的正相关性,且具有统计学意义(结论:临床相关性会影响网络关注度:虽然临床相关性会影响网络关注度,但大多数与斜视相关的高影响力研究并未在网络上得到充分共享。因此,研究人员应更加努力地在网络媒体平台上分享与斜视相关的高影响力论文,以提高患者对循证知识的可及性和质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis.

Background: Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.

Objective: This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online?

Methods: The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using "strabismus" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms.

Results: A weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55).

Conclusions: While clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Interactive Journal of Medical Research
Interactive Journal of Medical Research MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Whole-Body Cryotherapy Reduces Systemic Inflammation in Healthy Adults: Pilot Cohort Study. Social Cohesion and COVID-19: Integrative Review. Patient Profile and Cost Savings of Long-Term Care in a Spanish Hospital: Retrospective Observational Study. Benefits and Risks of AI in Health Care: Narrative Review. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Toward Salt Consumption and Its Association With 24-Hour Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion in Adults Living in Mexico City: Cross-Sectional Study.
×
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