Ruano Juan, Aguilar-Luque Macarena, Gómez-Garcia Francisco, Alcalde Mellado Patricia, Gay-Mimbrera Jesus, Carmona-Fernandez Pedro J, Maestre-López Beatriz, Sanz-Cabanillas Juan Luís, Hernández Romero José Luís, González-Padilla Marcelino, Vélez García-Nieto Antonio, Isla-Tejera Beatriz
Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, Menéndez Pidal Ave, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.
Instituto Maimonides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC)/Reina Sofía University Hospital/University of Córdoba, Menendez Pidal Ave, 14004 Cordoba, Spain.
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 29;13(1):e0191124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191124. eCollection 2018.
Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal's impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087-1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018-1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.
研究人员越来越多地利用在线社交网络来推广他们的工作。一些作者认为，衡量社交媒体活动可以预测一项初步研究的影响力（即一篇文章是否会被大量引用）。然而，科学质量、研究披露情况和期刊特征等变量对系统评价和荟萃分析的影响尚未得到评估。本研究旨在描述文献计量因素与社交媒体活动之间的复杂相互作用对关于银屑病的系统评价和荟萃分析影响力的影响（PROSPERO 2016：CRD42016053181）。使用系统评价方法学质量评估（AMSTAR）工具评估方法学质量。获取了每篇文章的替代计量指标，其中包括推特、脸书和谷歌+提及次数，以及Mendeley和Scopus读者数量，还有来自谷歌学术的相应文章被引用次数。还获取了元数据和与期刊相关的文献计量指标。最终的多因素分析纳入了164篇有替代计量指标信息的综述，结果显示，与Mendeley和Scopus读者相比，社交媒体和影响因子对谷歌学术中出现的被引用次数影响较小。尽管期刊的影响因子可预测推文数量（比值比，1.202；95%置信区间，1.087 - 1.049），但发表年份和Mendeley读者数量可预测谷歌学术中的被引用次数（比值比，1.033；95%置信区间，1.018 - 1.329）。最后，对于系统评价而言，方法学质量与文献计量影响力和社交媒体活动均无关。总之，科学质量、社交媒体活动和文章使用情况之间似乎缺乏关联性，因此在系统评价这种特定情况下，基于这些变量预测科学成果可能并不恰当。
