麻醉师对文献的欣赏：引文、下载量和 Altmetric 关注度得分的比较。
Appreciation of literature by the anaesthetist: A comparison of citations, downloads and Altmetric Attention Score.
机构信息
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
出版信息
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2020 Jul;64(6):823-828. doi: 10.1111/aas.13575. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
BACKGROUND
Different metrics exist to evaluate the impact of a paper. Traditionally, scientific citations are leading, but nowadays new, internet-based, metrics like downloads or Altmetric Attention Score receive increasing attention. We hypothesised a gap between these metrics, reflected by a divergence between scientific and clinical appreciation of anaesthesia literature.
METHODS
We collected the top 100 most cited and the top 100 most downloaded articles in Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica (AAS) and Anesthesia & Analgesia (A&A) published between 2014 and 2018. We analysed the relationship between the average number of citations per year, downloads per year and Altmetric Attention Score.
RESULTS
For both AAS and A&A, a significant correlation between the 100 most cited articles and their downloads (r = .573 and .603, respectively, P < .001) was found. However, only a poor correlation with Altmetric Attention Score was determined. For the 100 most downloaded articles, download frequency did not correlate with their number of citations (r = .035 and .139 respectively), but did correlate significantly with the Altmetric Attention Score (r = .458 and .354, P < .001).
CONCLUSION
Highly cited articles are downloaded more frequently. The most downloaded articles, however, did not receive more citations. In contrast to the most cited articles, more frequently downloaded papers had a higher Altmetric Attention Score. Thus, a 'trending' anaesthesia paper is not a prerequisite for scientific appreciation, reflecting a gap between clinical and scientific appreciation of literature.
背景
有不同的指标可以用来评估一篇论文的影响力。传统上，科学引文是主要的指标，但现在像下载量或 Altmetric 关注度这样的新的基于互联网的指标越来越受到关注。我们假设这些指标之间存在差距，这反映了科学界和临床界对麻醉学文献的评价存在分歧。
方法
我们收集了 2014 年至 2018 年期间 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica（AAS）和 Anesthesia & Analgesia（A&A）上发表的前 100 篇被引最多和下载量最多的文章。我们分析了每年平均引文数、下载量和 Altmetric 关注度之间的关系。
结果
对于 AAS 和 A&A，都发现被引最多的文章与其下载量之间存在显著相关性（r 分别为.573 和.603，P<0.001）。然而，与 Altmetric 关注度的相关性较差。对于下载量最多的 100 篇文章，下载频率与被引数量之间没有相关性（r 分别为.035 和.139），但与 Altmetric 关注度显著相关（r 分别为.458 和.354，P<0.001）。
结论
高被引文章被下载得更频繁。然而，下载量最多的文章并没有获得更多的引文。与被引最多的文章不同，下载量更多的文章有更高的 Altmetric 关注度。因此，一篇“热门”的麻醉学论文并不是受到科学界认可的前提，这反映了临床界和科学界对文献评价的差距。
Zotero 插件