A Framework for Amplifying the Teaching-Research Nexus Impact: Leveraging Altmetrics via Figshare | ASCILITE Publications

Abstract:  This concise paper explores as work in progress a collaborative discussion-based webinar series that develops and amplifies understandings of the teaching-research nexus. Aimed at early and mid-career university academics, the series implements a design-based research framework using alternative publishing via Figshare and dissemination through social media networks of the recordings of live online webinars. The webinars feature a panel of invited Deans Teaching and Learning from across the university in collaboration with three higher education research specialists. Results of ongoing analysis of development, engagement, outcomes, and impact are presented, and a preliminary framework is advanced for developing and amplifying understanding of the teaching-research nexus.


Impact Factors, Altmetrics, and Prestige, Oh My: The Relationship Between Perceived Prestige and Objective Measures of Journal Quality | SpringerLink

Abstract:  The focus of this work is to examine the relationship between subjective and objective measures of prestige of journals in our field. Findings indicate that items pulled from Clarivate, Elsevier, and Google all have statistically significant elements related to perceived journal prestige. Just as several widely used bibliometric metrics related to prestige, so were altmetric scores.


Influence of Social Networking Sites on Scholarly Communication: An Altmetrics Analysis of Selected LIS Journals

Abstract:  Abstract. This study aims to examine the influence of social networking sites on scholarly papers published in Library and Information Science journals. Top 100 articles published in two renowned journals International Journal of Information Management and the Journal of Medical Library Association, that received high Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) have been taken for the study. The analysis found that LIS research is most often mentioned on Twitter, followed by news outlets and blogs. Student groups and librarians are among the most frequent readers of the publications. The Pearson correlation coefficient test revealed a very high and significant positive correlation between Scopus citation and Dimensions.ai citation, Mendeley readership and Scopus citation. However, AAS and Dimensions.ai citation is low correlation and statistically not significant. The findings indicate that journals need social media profiles to disseminate information among academia and society to increase online attention to LIS  research.

Keywords: Altmetrics, LIS research, online attention, dimensions, social media metrics.

Cureus | Association Between Twitter Mention and Open-Access Status on Article Citation Metrics in the Field of Ophthalmology

Abstract:  Introduction: It is possible that social media use can boost not just articles’ social impact but the number of citations and academic influence as well. If a positive correlation between Twitter usage and citation metrics exists in the ophthalmology literature, it is important to broadcast this information to the ophthalmology community so they can use Twitter to increase academic engagement with their research. There has also been an increase in the number of articles available as open access. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the presence of an open-access citation advantage in the field of ophthalmology. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between Twitter mention and open access status on citation metrics in the ophthalmology literature.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study comparing article citation metrics to Twitter mentions and open access status. We gathered data on ophthalmology research articles from the six highest-ranked ophthalmology journals published as part of a January 2019 issue. Data were collected in April 2022, 38 months after online publication. Data on citations for each article was based on Google Scholar and Scopus websites. The Altmetric Bookmarklet extension was used to determine the amount of social engagement each article received. The open-access status of each article was based on the status listed in its corresponding journal. Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare social media engagement and open access status with the number of Google Scholar and Scopus citations.

Results: A total of 102 original research articles were analyzed. 89 (87.3%) articles received a Twitter mention. Articles tweeted at least once had a significantly higher Google Scholar score (27.2 +/- 4) compared to articles not tweeted (16.4 +/- 1.7; 1.7-fold increase, p<0.05). Likewise, the average Scopus score was significantly higher for tweeted articles (18.6 +/- 2.6) compared to articles not tweeted (11.8 +/- 1.6; 1.6-fold increase, p<0.05). Articles listed as open access had a significantly higher number of Twitter mentions (11.8 +/- 1.8) compared to articles that were not open access (5.6 +/- 0.7; 2.1-fold increase, p<0.05). Open-access articles also had higher citation scores compared to articles that are not open access, but this relationship was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This is the first study to evaluate the relationship between article Twitter mention and citation score in the field of ophthalmology. It demonstrates a significant positive correlation between the article Twitter mention and citation score and provides further evidence that social media engagement can be beneficial to the dissemination of academic information. Further studies on the relationship between social media engagement and article dissemination are warranted in the field of ophthalmology.

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Reporting Adherence in Peer-Reviewed and Preprint Manuscripts With the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores: A Meta-Research Study – Umaseh Sivanesan, Kay Wu, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Kiret Dhindsa, Fateme Salehi, Christian B. van der Pol, 2022



Abstract:  Purpose: To establish reporting adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) in diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), and to compare completeness of reporting between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv were retrospectively searched for 100 diagnostic accuracy medical imaging AI studies in peer-reviewed journals and preprint platforms with the highest AAS since the release of CLAIM to June 24, 2021. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the 42-item CLAIM checklist with comparison between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. The impact of additional factors was explored including body region, models on COVID-19 diagnosis and journal impact factor. Results: Median CLAIM adherence was 48% (20/42). The median CLAIM score of manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals was higher than preprints, 57% (24/42) vs 40% (16/42), P < .0001. Chest radiology was the body region with the least complete reporting (P = .0352), with manuscripts on COVID-19 less complete than others (43% vs 54%, P = .0002). For studies published in peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor, the CLAIM score correlated with impact factor, rho = 0.43, P = .0040. Completeness of reporting based on CLAIM score had a positive correlation with a study’s AAS, rho = 0.68, P < .0001. Conclusions: Overall reporting adherence to CLAIM is low in imaging diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest AAS, with preprints reporting fewer study details than peer-reviewed manuscripts. Improved CLAIM adherence could promote adoption of AI into clinical practice and facilitate investigators building upon prior works.

Open Access Articles Garner Increased Social Media Attention and Citation Rates Compared With Subscription Access Research Articles: An Altmetrics-Based Analysis – Amar S. Vadhera, Jonathan S. Lee, Isabel L. Veloso, Zeeshan A. Khan, Nicholas A. Trasolini, Safa Gursoy, Kyle N. Kunze, Jorge Chahla, Nikhil N. Verma, 2022

Abstract:  Background:

To better understand the research impact on social media, alternative web-based metrics (Altmetrics) were developed. Open access (OA) publishing, which allows for widespread distribution of scientific content, has become increasingly common in the medical literature. However, the relationship between OA publishing and social media impact remains unclear.



To compare social media attention and citation rates between OA and subscription access (SA) research articles within the orthopaedic and sports medicine literature.


Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.



Articles published as either OA or SA in 5 high-impact hybrid orthopaedic journals between January 2019 and December 2019 were analyzed. The primary outcome was the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), a validated measure of social media attention. Secondary outcomes included citation rates, article characteristics, and the number of shares on social media. Independent t tests and chi-square analyses were used to compare outcomes between OA and SA articles. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between article type and AAS while controlling for bibliometric characteristics.



A total of 2143 articles (246 OA articles, 11.5%; 1897 SA articles, 88.5%) were included. The mean AAS among all OA articles was 62.4 ± 184.6 (range, 0-2032), whereas the mean AAS among all SA articles was 18.4 ± 109.8 (range, 0-3425), representing a statistically significant difference (P < .001). The mean citation rate among OA articles was significantly higher (17.0 ± 22.5; range, 0-139) than that of SA articles (8.6 ± 13.4; range, 0-169) (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that OA status (? = 15.15; P = .044), number of institutions (? = 2.13; P = .023), studies classified as epidemiological investigations (? = 107.40; P < .001), and disclosure of a conflict of interest (? = ?11.18; P = .032) were significantly associated with a higher AAS.



OA articles resulted in significantly greater AAS and citations in comparison with SA articles. Articles published through the OA option in hybrid journals as well as those with a higher number of institutions, those that disclosed a conflict of interest, and those classified as epidemiological investigations were positively associated with greater AAS in addition to a greater number of citations. The potential for more extensive research dissemination inherent in the OA option may therefore translate into greater reach and social media attention.

Amplifying research influence through the social network, open access publishing, and international collaboration: A mediation analysis on nursing studies literature – Tang – Journal of Nursing Scholarship – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Introduction

Research impact and influence are commonly measured quantitatively by citation count received by research articles. Many institutes also use citation count as one of the factors in faculty performance appraisal and candidate selection of academic positions. Various strategies were recommended to amplify and accelerate research influence, particularly citation counts, by bringing research articles to a wider reach for potential readers. However, no prior empirical study was conducted to examine and valid effects of those strategies on nursing studies.

This study examines and verifies the direct effects and mediation effects of some strategies, namely, the use of Twitter, international collaboration, the use of ResearchGate, and open access publishing, for amplifying the citation of research and review articles in nursing studies.


Cross-sectional study design.


Articles published in top nursing journals in 2016 were identified in PUBMED and the citation metrics for individual articles until 2021 were extracted from Scopus. The primary outcome was the citation count of the article, while the tweet count on Twitter of the article was considered a mediator. The predictors included paper type, the total number of authors, the proportion of authors with a ResearchGate account in the article, funding support, open-accessed article, and the number of different countries stated in the authors’ affiliation. A mediation analysis was conducted to examine the predictors’ direct and indirect effects (i.e., via tweet count) on the citation count of the article.


A total of 2210 articles were included in this study, of which 223 (10.1%) were review articles. The median (IQR) number of Scopus citations, tweets, countries, and percentage of authors with ResearchGate accounts were 12 (6–21), 2 (0–6), 1 (1–1), and 75% (50%–100%) respectively. In the mediation analysis, tweet count, article type, number of countries, percentage of authors with a ResearchGate account, and journal impact factors in 2014 were positively associated with the Scopus citation count. The effects of article type, open access, and journals’ impact factors in 2014 on Scopus citation count were mediated by the tweet count.


This study provides empirical support for some strategies researchers may employ to amplify the citation count of their research articles. The methodology of our study can be extended to compare research influence between entities (e.g., across countries or institutes).

Clinical Relevance

The citation refers to the research work cited by peers and is one of the indicators for research impact. Higher citations implied the research work is read and used by others, therefore, understanding the associated factors with higher citations is critical.

Beyond just counting the beans: Reimagining research indicators to favour diversity | Zenodo

Abstract:  The increase in the availability of data relevant to research performance evaluation over the past ten years has been transformational. Despite this and the parallel increase in the power of computational tools the actual indicators used in practice remain stubbornly limited to citation counts and simple derivatives such as impact factors, h-indices and field-normalised counts. The lack of diversity in indicators, along with a lack of diversity in data sources, has aligned with a lack of diversity in the academy to strengthen and perpetuate a status quo where high prestige researchers at high prestige institutions gain greater resources, leading to more outputs in which they cite each other, increasing citation counts and propelling the whole cycle forward.

This talk will propose some simple, yet radical, shifts in how we think about research performance indicators. Using open data and transparent analysis it will imagine a world in which we stop asking how to count more beans, but instead how different they are.

An analysis of journalism articles achieving high Altmetric attention scores – ScienceOpen

Abstract:  New methods of judging the impact of academic articles now include alternative metrics, and the goal of this study was to provide an insight into the journals and papers with top Altmetric attention scores (AAS) in the field of journalism. Scopus and Dimensions were used as the primary data sources. Fifteen journalism journals were identified from Scopus, and papers from these journals with an Altmetric Attention Score of over 100 were collected from Dimensions as the study’s sample, which comprised 87 papers. Most of the papers with high AAS were published after 2017, and five were published in 2022. The sample included a larger number of closed access articles ( n = 50) than open access ( n = 37), although analysis revealed that open access articles had higher median Tweets than closed access. Articles on journalism practice were more likely to receive attention from news outlets. None of the papers with high AAS are highly cited, which may be due to the limited time to accumulate citations. The journal with the highest impact factor (Digital Journalism) did not have the greatest number of papers with high AAS, but had far higher scores on Twitter engagement than the other journals. The results do not show any correlation between impact factors and citation metrics and social metrics.


The Altmetric Attention Score Is Associated With Citation Rates and May Reflect Academic Impact in the Total Joint Arthroplasty Literature – Kyle N. Kunze, Amar S. Vadhera, Evan M. Polce, Carlos A. Higuera, Ahmed Siddiqi, Jorge Chahla, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, 2022

Abstract:  Background: Given the increasing interest and potential use of social media for the promotion of orthopedic literature, there is a need to better understand Altmetrics. Purposes: We sought to determine the relationship between the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and the number of citations for articles on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) published in orthopedics journals. We also sought to determine the predictors of greater social media attention for these articles. Methods: Articles on TJA published in Bone and Joint Journal (BJJ), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research (CORR), Journal of Arthroplasty, Journal of Knee Surgery, Hip International, and Acta Orthopaedica in 2016 were extracted (n = 498). One-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni corrections was used to compare AAS and citations across journals. Multivariate regressions were used to determine predictors of social media attention and number of citations. Results: The mean AAS and number of citations were 7.5 (range: 0–289) and 16.7 (range: 0–156), respectively. Significant between-group effects were observed according to journal for AAS and number of citations. Publishing an article in JBJS was the strongest predictor of higher number of citations. Publishing an article in BJJ was the only independent predictor of higher AAS, while publishing an article in JBJS or CORR trended toward statistical significance. A higher AAS was a significant predictor of a higher number of citations. Number of citations and number of study references were positive predictors of greater social media attention on Twitter and Facebook. Conclusions: In articles on TJA published in 7 journals in 2016, a higher AAS was a associated with a higher number of citations. Various bibliometric characteristics were found to be significantly associated with greater social media attention; the most common influences were number of citations and number of references. Researchers in orthopedics can use this information when considering how to assess the impact of their work.


Altmetric and bibliometric analysis of influential articles in reproductive biology, 1980–2019 – Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Abstract:  Research question

What are the most influential articles in reproductive biology journals from 1980 to 2019 according to Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), number of citations and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR)?



Cross-sectional study of reproductive biology articles indexed in the National Institutes of Health Open Citation Collection from 1980 to 2019. Data were downloaded on 20 May 2021. The 100 articles with highest AAS, RCR and number of citations were analysed.



Twenty-one reproductive biology journals were identified, including 120,069 articles published from 1980 to 2019. In total 227 reproductive biology classics were identified due to some overlap between the three lists. Compared with the 100 articles with the highest AAS (after excluding articles featured on both lists), the 100 top-cited articles were older (2014 versus 2001, mean difference [95% confidence interval] 13.5 [11.5, 15.5]), less likely to be open access (64% versus 85%), more likely to be reviews (42% versus 12%) and less likely to be observational studies (9% versus 51%) and randomized clinical trials (0% versus 5%). These same trends were observed in analyses comparing the 100 articles with highest AAS to the 100 articles with highest RCR. The most common topic was assisted reproduction, but prominent topics included infertility for top AAS articles, reproductive technology in animals for top-cited articles, and polycystic ovary syndrome for top RCR articles.



Formerly, influential articles in reproductive biology journals were evaluated by absolute citation rates and subject to limitations of conventional bibliometric analysis. This is the first comprehensive study to use altmetrics and citation-based metrics to identify reproductive biology classics.

An Innovative Approach to Bridging Open Access, Collection Development, and Faculty: An Altmetric and CiteScore Case Study at a Large Public University

Abstract:  This case study examines the outcomes of an altmetric analysis of open access (OA) and non-open access (non-OA) publications from the Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark and New Brunswick. It explains the magnitude of the 2014–2020 business faculty OA and non-OA publications and their relative scholarly impact and metrics. The continued increase in the volume of OA articles suggests that professors are gradually accepting these article types, and that altmetric and CiteScore journal ranking metrics data may strengthen strategic initiatives for business librarians to assist faculties and university libraries in collective decision-making processes.

The $20 Blender Dilemma: How Different Data Can Create the Perfect Mix?  – Social Science Space

“If we’re going to invest in a hand-held blender, and all we want to spend is $20, we’re likely to take into account a number of factors. Speed, weight, power to name but three. Add-ons, charging power, even the manufacturer’s reputation likely will come into our buying decision. So why, then, if we are spending much more than $20 on an article – whether through an OA fee to publish, or a subscription to read — would we just take one metric into account? And especially (keeping to our metaphor!) when it was designed to describe a washing machine, and one built many decades ago? 

The research world has become much more sophisticated, especially in the world of open access publishing. Researchers, publishers and other stakeholders go to considerable effort to ensure that their research is widely read, accessible and shareable.? …”

It’s Time to Terminate Social Work’s Relationship with the Impact Factor | Social Work | Oxford Academic

“As a journal-level metric, the IF is unable to assess the value of any given article or author. To make this inference, one would need to read the article and assess its claims, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, and broader implications. What’s more, the IF (which represents the average number of citations across a finite set of eligible articles) is vulnerable to the skewness in citation rates among articles (Nature, 2005) and to the manipulation, negotiation, and gaming of its calculation among stakeholders (Ioannidis & Thombs, 2019). At a more fundamental level the IF does not capture journal functioning such as improvements to (or worsening of) internal evaluative processes (e.g., effectiveness of peer review, changes to submission instructions and policies, use and adherence to reporting guidelines, etc.; Dunleavy, 2022). These and other issues are explored in more depth by Seglen (1997)….

In light of these limitations, social work should de-emphasize the IF and instead embrace a new set of evaluative tools. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (American Society for Cell Biology, 2013)—and more recently the Leiden Manifesto (Hicks et al., 2015)—typify such efforts. They encourage stakeholders (i.e., academic institutions, journals, funders, researchers) to consider using a multitude of qualitative and quantitative alternative metrics (i.e., “altmetrics”; Priem et al., 2012; see also https://metrics-toolkit.org/metrics/) when judging scholarly output—whether it be a journal article, a grant proposal, or even a hiring or tenure packet. …”


Societal impact of university research in the written press: media attention in the context of SIUR and the open science agenda among social scientists in Flanders, Belgium | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Transferring scientific knowledge to non-academic audiences is an essential aspect of the open science agenda, which calls for scholars to pursue a popularization of their research. Accordingly, purposefully introducing scientific insights to the public at large is almost univocally deemed commendable. Indeed, in today’s models of research evaluation, the objects and activities considered are being extended beyond peer-reviewed journal articles to include non-scholarly popular communication. Although altmetrics offer one instrumental way to count some interactions with lay audiences, their reliance on social media makes them susceptible to manipulation, and mostly reflect circulation among niche audiences. In comparison, attention from non-scholarly media like newspapers and magazines seems a more relevant pathway to effectuate societal impact, due to its recognition in qualitative assessment tools and its broad, societal reach. Based on a case study of social scientists’ attention by newspapers and magazines in Flanders (northern Dutch-speaking region of Belgium) in 2019, this paper highlights that frequent participation in the public debate is reserved for high-status researchers only. Results show highly skewed media appearance patterns in both career position and gender, as eight male professors accounted for almost half of all 2019 media attention for social scientists. Because media attention is highly subject-dependent moreover, certain disciplines and fields offer easier pathways to popularization in media than others. Both the open science agenda and research assessment models value presence of researchers in popular media, adding written press attention to existing evaluation assessments however would disproportionately disadvantage early career researchers and exacerbate existing inequalities in academia.