Wiley Zachary C, Boyd Carter J, Ananthasekar Shivani, Bhat Nita, Harish Bindiganavile Shruthi, Lee Andrew G
School of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
J Acad Ophthalmol (2017). 2021 Jun 30;13(1):e89-e95. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1728658. eCollection 2021 Jan.
In this study, we reviewed a select sample of ophthalmology literature to determine if there was a correlation between Altimetric and traditional citation-based and impact factor metrics. We hypothesized that Altmetric score would more closely correlate with impact factor and citations in 2016. for the year 2013 was used to find the 15 highest impact factor ophthalmology journals in 2013. Then Elsevier's Scopus was used to identify the 10 most cited articles from each journal for the years 2013 and 2016. Metrics for all identified articles were collected using the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and date of Twitter account creation was noted for journals with such an account. Altmetric scores, impact factor, and citation counts were tabulated for each article. Pearson's correlation coefficient ( ) determined correlation of independent variables (number of citations or impact factor) with dependent variable (Altmetric score). For our Twitter analysis, account age was the independent variable and calculated correlation coefficients ( ) were the dependent variable. Proportion of variance was determined with a coefficient of determination ( ). This study included 300 articles, evenly split between 2013 and 2016. Within the 2013 cohort, three journals had significant positive correlations between citation count and Altmetric score. For the 2016 cohort, both Altmetric score and citation count ( = 0.583, < 0.001) and Altmetric score and impact factor ( = 0.183, = 0.025) revealed significant positive correlations. In 2016, two journals were found to have significant correlations between Altmetric score and citation number. Neither year revealed a significant correlation between the age of a journal's Twitter profile and the relationship between Altmetric score and citation count. In each year, Twitter accounted for the highest number of mentions. The findings suggest that correlation between Altmetric score and traditional quality metric scores may be increasing. Altmetric score was correlated with impact factor and number of citations in 2016 but not 2013. At this time, Altmetrics are best used as an adjunct that is complementary but not an alternative to traditional bibliometrics for assessing academic productivity and impact.
在本研究中,我们回顾了眼科文献的一个精选样本,以确定Altmetric与传统的基于引用次数和影响因子的指标之间是否存在相关性。我们假设在2016年Altmetric得分与影响因子和引用次数的相关性更强。2013年,我们使用当年的数据找出了15本影响因子最高的眼科期刊。然后,利用爱思唯尔的Scopus数据库,找出了2013年和2016年各期刊中被引用次数最多的10篇文章。使用Altmetric书签工具收集所有已识别文章的指标,并记录有推特账号的期刊的账号创建日期。将每篇文章的Altmetric得分、影响因子和引用次数制成表格。通过皮尔逊相关系数( )确定自变量(引用次数或影响因子)与因变量(Altmetric得分)之间的相关性。对于我们的推特分析,账号年龄是自变量,计算出的相关系数( )是因变量。用决定系数( )确定方差比例。
本研究包括300篇文章,2013年和2016年各占一半。在2013年的队列中,有三本期刊的引用次数与Altmetric得分之间存在显著的正相关。对于2016年的队列,Altmetric得分与引用次数( = 0.583, < 0.001)以及Altmetric得分与影响因子( = 0.183, = 0.025)均呈现出显著的正相关。2016年,发现有两本期刊的Altmetric得分与引用次数之间存在显著相关性。在这两年中,均未发现期刊推特账号的年龄与Altmetric得分和引用次数之间的关系存在显著相关性。在每年中,推特提及次数均为最多。
研究结果表明,Altmetric得分与传统质量指标得分之间的相关性可能正在增加。Altmetric得分在2016年与影响因子和引用次数相关,但在2013年并非如此。目前,在评估学术生产力和影响力时,Altmetrics最好用作一种补充手段,与传统文献计量学相辅相成,而非替代传统文献计量学。