Yeung Andy Wai Kan, Singh Pradeep, Eickhoff Simon B
Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Applied Oral Sciences and Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
IBRO Neurosci Rep. 2021 Dec 2;12:20-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ibneur.2021.11.003. eCollection 2022 Jun.
Many neuroimaging guidelines and recommendations have been published in the literature to guide fellow researchers to conduct and report research findings in a standardized manner. It was largely unknown if they were cited or read by the scientific community. Analyses were conducted to assess their impact in terms of citations, Twitter posts, and Mendeley reads. Web of Science Core Collection database was accessed to identify relevant publications. The number of their Twitter posts and Mendeley reads were recorded from Altmetric and Mendeley databases respectively. Spearman correlation tests were conducted to evaluate if the citation count had a relationship with these metrics. When all 1786 publications were considered, citation count had a strong positive correlation with Mendeley reads (rho = 0.602, p < 0.001), but a weak negative correlation with Twitter posts (rho = -0.085, p < 0.001). When publications in the 2010 s were specifically considered, citation count had an even stronger positive correlation with Mendeley reads (rho = 0.712, P < 0.001), whereas the correlation with Twitter posts became positive but still weak (rho = 0.072, P = 0.012). Temporal profiles of citation and Mendeley counts showed that these guidelines and recommendations had a relatively stable influence in the field for years after being published.
许多神经影像学指南和建议已在文献中发表，以指导同行研究人员以标准化方式开展和报告研究结果。科学界是否引用或阅读了这些指南和建议，在很大程度上尚不清楚。我们进行了分析，以评估它们在被引频次、推特帖子和 Mendeley 阅读量方面的影响力。我们访问了科学网核心合集数据库，以识别相关出版物。它们的推特帖子数量和 Mendeley 阅读量分别从 Altmetric 和 Mendeley 数据库中记录下来。我们进行了斯皮尔曼相关性检验，以评估被引频次是否与这些指标存在关联。当考虑所有 1786 篇出版物时，被引频次与 Mendeley 阅读量呈强正相关（rho = 0.602，p < 0.001），但与推特帖子呈弱负相关（rho = -0.085，p < 0.001）。当专门考虑 2010 年代的出版物时，被引频次与 Mendeley 阅读量的正相关性更强（rho = 0.712，P < 0.001），而与推特帖子的相关性变为正相关但仍然较弱（rho = 0.072，P = 0.012）。被引频次和 Mendeley 阅读量的时间分布表明，这些指南和建议在发表后的数年里在该领域具有相对稳定的影响力。
