Pal Avishek, Portegies Wesley, Schwinn Jennifer, Taylor Michael, Rees Tomas J, Thomas Sarah, Brown Kim, Morrell Gareth, Nicholson Josh, Falcone Brian, Juneja Renu
Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
MedComms Experts, New York, NY, USA.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2024 Apr;40(4):677-687. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2320849. Epub 2024 Feb 29.
Different stakeholders, such as authors, research institutions, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may determine the impact of peer-reviewed publications in different ways. Commonly-used measures of research impact, such as the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not designed to evaluate the impact of individual articles. They are heavily dependent on citations, and therefore only measure impact of the overall journal or researcher respectively, taking months or years to accrue. The past decade has seen the development of article-level metrics (ALMs), that measure the online attention received by an individual publication in contexts including social media platforms, news media, citation activity, and policy and patent citations. These new tools can complement traditional bibliometric data and provide a more holistic evaluation of the impact of a publication. This commentary discusses the need for ALMs, and summarizes several examples - PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. We also discuss how metrics may be used to evaluate the value of "publication extenders" - educational microcontent such as animations, videos and plain-language summaries that are often hosted on HCP education platforms. Publication extenders adapt a publication's key data to audience needs and thereby extend a publication's reach. These new approaches have the potential to address the limitations of traditional metrics, but the diversity of new metrics requires that users have a keen understanding of which forms of impact are relevant to a specific publication and select and monitor ALMs accordingly.
不同的利益相关者，如作者、研究机构和医疗保健专业人员（HCPs），可能会以不同方式决定同行评审出版物的影响力。常用的研究影响力衡量指标，如期刊影响因子或H指数，并非旨在评估单篇文章的影响力。它们严重依赖于引用，因此分别仅衡量整个期刊或研究人员的影响力，且需要数月或数年才能积累起来。在过去十年中，文章层面指标（ALMs）得到了发展，这些指标衡量的是单个出版物在社交媒体平台、新闻媒体、引用活动以及政策和专利引用等背景下获得的在线关注度。这些新工具可以补充传统的文献计量数据，并对出版物的影响力提供更全面的评估。本评论讨论了对文章层面指标的需求，并总结了几个例子——PlumX Metrics、Altmetric、更好的文章指标得分、EMPIRE指数和scite。我们还讨论了如何使用这些指标来评估“出版物扩展内容”的价值——教育微内容，如动画、视频和平白语言摘要，这些内容通常托管在医疗保健专业人员教育平台上。出版物扩展内容根据受众需求调整出版物的关键数据，从而扩大出版物的影响力范围。这些新方法有可能解决传统指标的局限性，但新指标的多样性要求用户敏锐地理解哪种影响力形式与特定出版物相关，并相应地选择和监测文章层面指标。
