Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 15;23(10):e29809. doi: 10.2196/29809.
BACKGROUND: Social networks are now essential tools for promoting research and researchers. However, there is no study investigating the link between presence or not on professional social networks and scientific publication or citation for a given researcher. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study the link between professional presence on social networks and scientific publications/citations among anesthesia researchers. METHODS: We included all the French full professors and associate professors of anesthesia. We analyzed their presence on the social networks Twitter (professional account with ≥1 tweet over the 6 previous months) and ResearchGate. We extracted their bibliometric parameters for the 2016-2020 period via the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) database in the Science Citation Index-Expanded index. RESULTS: A total of 162 researchers were analyzed; 42 (25.9%) had an active Twitter account and 110 (67.9%) a ResearchGate account. There was no difference between associate professors and full professors regarding active presence on Twitter (8/23 [35%] vs. 34/139 [24.5%], respectively; P=.31) or ResearchGate (15/23 [65%] vs. 95/139 [68.3%], respectively; P=.81). Researchers with an active Twitter account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (45 [28-61] vs. 26 [12-41]; P<.001), a higher h-index (12 [8-16] vs. 8 [5-11]; P<.001), a higher number of citations per publication (12.54 [9.65-21.8] vs. 10.63 [5.67-16.10]; P=.01), and a higher number of citations (563 [321-896] vs. 263 [105-484]; P<.001). Researchers with a ResearchGate account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (33 [17-47] vs. 26 [9-43]; P=.03) and a higher h-index (9 [6-13] vs. 8 [3-11]; P=.03). There was no difference between researchers with a ResearchGate account and those without it concerning the number of citations per publication and overall number of citations. In multivariate analysis including sex, academic status, and presence on social networks, the presence on Twitter was associated with the number of publications (β=20.2; P<.001), the number of citations (β=494.5; P<.001), and the h-index (β=4.5; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among French anesthesia researchers, an active presence on Twitter is associated with higher scientific publication and citations.
背景：社交网络现在是推广研究和研究人员的重要工具。然而，目前还没有研究调查特定研究人员是否存在于专业社交网络与科学出版物或引用之间的联系。
目的：本研究的目的是研究麻醉研究人员的专业社交网络存在与否与科学出版物/引用之间的联系。
方法：我们纳入了所有法国的麻醉学正教授和副教授。我们分析了他们在 Twitter（过去 6 个月内至少发布了 1 条推文的专业账户）和 ResearchGate 上的存在情况。我们通过 Web of Science Core Collection（Clarivate Analytics）数据库中的科学引文索引扩展版（Science Citation Index-Expanded index）提取了他们在 2016-2020 年期间的文献计量参数。
结果：共分析了 162 名研究人员；42 名（25.9%）拥有活跃的 Twitter 账户，110 名（67.9%）拥有 ResearchGate 账户。副教授和正教授在 Twitter 上的活跃程度（分别为 34/139 [24.5%]和 8/23 [35%]；P=.31）或 ResearchGate（分别为 95/139 [68.3%]和 15/23 [65%]；P=.81）方面没有差异。拥有活跃 Twitter 账户的研究人员（中位数 [IQR]）的出版物数量更多（45 [28-61] vs. 26 [12-41]；P<.001），h 指数更高（12 [8-16] vs. 8 [5-11]；P<.001），每篇出版物的引用次数更多（12.54 [9.65-21.8] vs. 10.63 [5.67-16.10]；P=.01），以及引用次数更多（563 [321-896] vs. 263 [105-484]；P<.001）。拥有 ResearchGate 账户的研究人员（中位数 [IQR]）的出版物数量更多（33 [17-47] vs. 26 [9-43]；P=.03），h 指数更高（9 [6-13] vs. 8 [3-11]；P=.03）。在出版物数量和总引用次数方面，拥有 ResearchGate 账户的研究人员与没有账户的研究人员之间没有差异。在包括性别、学术地位和社交网络存在情况的多变量分析中，在 Twitter 上的存在与出版物数量（β=20.2；P<.001）、引用数量（β=494.5；P<.001）和 h 指数（β=4.5；P<.001）相关。
结论：在法国麻醉学研究人员中，Twitter 的活跃存在与更高的科学出版物和引用量相关。
Br J Anaesth. 2020-1-24
Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2022-1
Int J Impot Res. 2022-9
Am J Sports Med. 2020-2-28
Adv Cancer Educ Qual Improv. 2025-6
JTCVS Open. 2024-6-1
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2020-10-22
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020-12
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020-12
Br J Anaesth. 2020-1-24
JAMA Intern Med. 2019-12-1
World Neurosurg. 2019-7
Zotero 插件