Scarlat Marius M, Mavrogenis Andreas F, Pećina Marko, Niculescu Marius
Clinique Saint-Michel, Toulon, France.
Int Orthop. 2015 Aug;39(8):1459-64. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2766-y. Epub 2015 May 7.
This paper compares the traditional tools of calculation for a journal's efficacy and visibility with the new tools that have arrived from the Internet, social media and search engines. The examples concern publications of orthopaedic surgery and in particular International Orthopaedics.
Until recently, the prestige of publications, authors or journals was evaluated by the number of citations using the traditional citation metrics, most commonly the impact factor. Over the last few years, scientific medical literature has developed exponentially. The Internet has dramatically changed the way of sharing and the speed of flow of medical information. New tools have allowed readers from all over the world to access information and record their experience. Web platforms such as Facebook® and Twitter® have allowed for inputs from the general public. Professional sites such as LinkedIn® and more specialised sites such as ResearchGate®, BioMed Central® and OrthoEvidence® have provided specific information on defined fields of science. Scientific and professional blogs provide free access quality information. Therefore, in this new era of advanced wireless technology and online medical communication, the prestige of a paper should also be evaluated by alternative metrics (altmetrics) that measure the visibility of the scientific information by collecting Internet citations, number of downloads, number of hits on the Internet, number of tweets and likes of scholarly articles by newspapers, blogs, social media and other sources of data.
This article provides insights into altmetrics and informs the reader about current tools for optimal visibility and citation of their work. It also includes useful information about the performance of International Orthopaedics and the bias between traditional publication metrics and the new alternatives.
本文将期刊影响力和知名度的传统计算工具与源自互联网、社交媒体和搜索引擎的新工具进行比较。实例涉及骨外科出版物，尤其是《国际骨科学》。
直到最近，出版物、作者或期刊的声誉都是通过使用传统引用指标（最常见的是影响因子）的引用次数来评估的。在过去几年中，科学医学文献呈指数级增长。互联网极大地改变了医学信息的共享方式和传播速度。新工具使世界各地的读者能够获取信息并记录他们的经验。诸如脸书®和推特®之类的网络平台允许公众参与。诸如领英®之类的专业网站以及诸如研究之门®、生物医学中心®和骨科证据®之类更专业的网站提供了特定科学领域的具体信息。科学和专业博客提供免费的高质量信息。因此，在这个先进无线技术和在线医学交流的新时代，一篇论文的声誉也应该通过替代指标（替代计量学）来评估，这些指标通过收集互联网引用、下载次数、互联网点击量、报纸、博客、社交媒体和其他数据来源对学术文章的推文和点赞数来衡量科学信息的知名度。
本文深入探讨了替代计量学，并向读者介绍了当前用于实现作品最佳知名度和引用的工具。它还包括有关《国际骨科学》表现以及传统出版指标与新替代指标之间偏差的有用信息。
