Correlation Between Altmetric Attention Scores and Citations for Articles Published in High–Impact Factor Ophthalmology Journals From 2018 to 2019 | Medical Journals and Publishing | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network

Importance  The Altmetric attention score (AAS) provides new information to gauge the impact of a research article not found through typical metrics, such as impact factor or citation counts. Objective  To explore the association between AAS and common impact markers among high-impact ophthalmology journals from 2018 to 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants  All articles published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO), JAMA Ophthalmology (JAMAO), and Ophthalmology (OPH) from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, were collected for this cross-sectional study. Excluded articles were those missing Altmetric data at the time of data collection. The AAS and associated social media impact for each article were collected with the AAS calculator bookmarklet. Spearman rank correlation analyses and analysis of variance tests were conducted to assess differences in various metrics between AJO, JAMAO, and OPH. The study included articles published of all document types (article, conference paper, editorial, erratum, letter, note, retracted, review, and short survey) and access status (open access and not open access). Main Outcomes and Measures  The correlation between citation counts and Altmetric variables including AAS. Results  A total of 2467 articles were published in the study period. There were 351 articles excluded owing to missing Altmetric data. Of the 2116 articles included in the analysis, 1039 (49.1%) were published in 2018, and 1077 (50.9%) were published in 2019; the mean number of citations was 8.8 (95% CI, 7.9-9.6) for AJO, 6.2 (95% CI, 5.3-7.1) for JAMAO, and 15.1 (95% CI, 13.3-17.0) for OPH. The mean AAS was 4.5 (95% CI, 3.3-5.6) for AJO (723 publications), 27.4 (95% CI, 22.1-32.8) for JAMAO (758 publications), and 15.1 (95% CI, 10.9-19.3) for OPH (635 publications). Citation rate was moderately correlated with AAS across the 3 journals (AJO, ??=?0.39; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.41; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.40; P?<?.001), as well as minimally or moderately correlated with engagement or mention by Facebook posts (AJO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.24; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.20; P?<?.001), news outlet reporting (AJO, ??=?0.12; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.19; P?<?.001), and Twitter posts (AJO, ??=?0.40; P?<?.001; JAMAO, ??=?0.38; P?<?.001; OPH, ??=?0.42; P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance  Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that citation rate has a moderate positive correlation with online and social media sharing of research in ophthalmology literature. Peer-reviewed journals may increase their reach and impact by sharing their literature through social media and online platforms.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

Dissemination of Plastic Surgery Research: An Analysis of PR… : Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – Global Open

Abstract:  Background: 

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) recently developed an open access counterpart, PRS Global Open (PRS-GO), to increase dissemination of research in an efficient and widespread manner. We aimed to (1) examine the differences in the dissemination of research published in PRS and PRS-GO, and (2) identify differences in the authorship between the journals.

Methods: 

We extracted data on Altmetric Attention Scores, article mentions, citations, and author characteristics using the Altmetric Explorer Database from January 1, 2018, to January 1, 2020. We stratified research outputs into traditional dissemination and social media dissemination. Additionally, multivariable linear regression models were used to examine differences in dissemination between the journals.

Results: 

A total of 1798 articles were included in the analysis (PRS = 1031, PRS-GO = 767). The average Altmetric Attention Score was higher for PRS compared with PRS-GO (PRS = 15.2, PRS-GO = 8.1). Articles in PRS had a greater Altmetric Attention Score (?-coefficient: 7.50, P < 0.001), higher measures of traditional dissemination (?-coefficient: 3.11, P < 0.001), and higher measures of social media dissemination than articles in PRS-GO (?-coefficient: 4.38, P = 0.73).

Conclusions: 

Despite being an open access journal, PRS-GO had significantly fewer measures of social media and traditional dissemination compared with PRS. Given that numerous factors may influence the dissemination of scientific literature, it is imperative that publications identify specific ways to provide a fair advantage for both researchers and readers. Additional initiatives to engage readership for open access may include creative campaigns targeting an appropriate audience.

EU and US legislation seek to open up digital platform data

“Despite the potential societal benefits of granting independent researchers access to digital platform data, such as promotion of transparency and accountability, online platform companies have few legal obligations to do so and potentially stronger business incentives not to. Without legally binding mechanisms that provide greater clarity on what and how data can be shared with independent researchers in privacy-preserving ways, platforms are unlikely to share the breadth of data necessary for robust scientific inquiry and public oversight (1). Here, we discuss two notable, legislative efforts aimed at opening up platform data: the Digital Services Act (DSA), recently approved by the European Parliament (2), and the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act (PATA), recently proposed by several US senators (3). Although the legislation could support researchers’ access to data, they could also fall short in many ways, highlighting the complex challenges in mandating data access for independent research and oversight….

Platforms’ hesitancy to share data with researchers is not wholly unwarranted. A Facebook-approved research partnership with Cambridge Analytica resulted in scandal, a $5 billion fine by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for privacy violations, and new requirements in an FTC consent order to implement comprehensive data privacy and security safeguards (9)….”

 

The Future is in Interoperability Not Big Tech: 2021 in Review

“Network effects aren’t anything new in tech. What is new are the legal strictures that prevent interoperability: new ways of applying cybersecurity law, copyright, patents, and other laws and regulations that make it illegal (or legally terrifying) to make new products that plug into existing ones.

That’s why you can’t leave Facebook and still talk to your Facebook friends. It’s why you can’t switch mobile platforms and take your apps with you. It’s why you can’t switch audiobook providers without losing your audiobooks, and why your local merchants don’t just give you a browser plugin that replaces Amazon’s “buy” buttons with information about which store near you has the item you’re looking for on its shelves.

These switching costs are wholly artificial….

Here’s the interop news that excited us this year:

The US Congress took up the ACCESS Act, a law that would require the largest platforms to open up APIs to their rivals;;
The EU launched the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a sweeping pro-competition proposal. The initial draft had a lot of stuff we loved on interop, which was removed from subsequent drafts, and then, in a victory for common sense and good policy, the European Parliament put all the interop stuff back in, and more besides! …”

 

Public Engagement with Science via Social Media: A Case of Communicating the Pandemic on Twitter – Knox – 2021 – Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The poster describes a project which analyzes interactions between laypeople and experts via social media. Our aim is to understand how experts and the general public interact with each other on social media, and how we can use current data to improve these interactions in the future. We created a Twitter bot to obtain data from 15 COVID-19 experts and 7 federal government-sponsored public health organizations from English-speaking countries. The data were analyzed in R to investigate the relationships among Followers, Favorites, Retweets, and Hashtag Count per tweet. The preliminary analysis indicated statistically significant differences between various variables including: Number of Favorites, Number of Retweets, Number of Hashtags, and Number of Followers; the results shed light on the current relationship between the public and experts on social media.

 

 

 

How do scholars and non-scholars participate in dataset dissemination on Twitter – ScienceDirect

Abstract:  Focusing on the dataset dissemination structure on Twitter, this study aims to investigate how users of two different identities, scholars and the public, participate in the dissemination process. We collected 2464 datasets from Altmetric.com and used social network analysis to plot the graphs. From a macroscopic viewpoint, most datasets were diffused by viral dissemination (structure II) and mixed dissemination (structure III), and the diffusion level was fundamentally one or two levels. Based on the topics clustering results of the datasets, the majority were about open access, research data, and Altmetrics, as well as astronomy, biology, medicine, and environmental engineering. The dataset dissemination structure shared a little relationship with the research topic. From the microscopic viewpoint of parent nodes and child nodes, during the dataset dissemination, there were only marginally more Twitter users with scholar status than non-scholar ones, suggesting that compared with traditional academic accomplishments such as journal papers. However, the dataset seems to be more professional and targeted; significant audience beyond academics are also involved. During disseminating datasets on Twitter, most tended to be diffused among users of the same identity. However, a few non-scholars played crucial roles, such as super users and intermediaries. Overall, a considerable part of tweets and tweets of parent nodes with the ability to spread is primarily the tweets commented simultaneously forwarded (type II) are posted at the same time commented. Hence, this study underlines the significance of research data-sharing and social media’s role in public participation in science.

 

Senators unveil bipartisan bill requiring social media giants to open data to researchers | TheHill

“Meta and other social media companies would be required to share their data with outside researchers under a new bill announced by a bipartisan group of senators on Thursday. …

The bill, the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, would allow independent researchers to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation. If the requests are approved, social media companies would be required to provide the necessary data subject to certain privacy protections. …”

Science Mesh in Social Media Analytics and Astronomy – Collaborative Documents and On-Demand data transfers | CS3MESH4EOSC

“The second CS3MESH4EOSC webinar, entitled “Science Mesh in Social Media Analytics and Astronomy – Collaborative Documents and On-Demand data transfers” is going to take place on 17th November from 1:00 pm-2:00 pm CEST. 

The webinar will be focused on the two data services (On-Demand Data Transfer and Collaborative Documents) and the related Use-Cases (LOFAR and RiseSMA).

The speakers will highlight how the Science Mesh is integrating both data services into the federated Science Mesh across disciplines. Exemplary benefits of this integration in Social Media Analytics and Crisis Communication (RiseSMA) and Astronomy (LOFAR – Low-Frequency Array), fields will be presented by real use cases that are already getting benefits from the Science Mesh’s features….”

Using Twitter as a data source an overview of social media research tools (2021) | Impact of Social Sciences

In this edition of Wasim Ahmed’s long-running series on using Twitter data as a research tool, Wasim considers the significance of the newly introduced Twitter ‘academic research product track’ and the different ways in which Twitter and social media data have been used to analyse the global COVID-19 pandemic, as well as updating his regular list of resources for researchers looking to use Twitter data in their research.

Catalyzing a Cultural Renaissance (Consilience Project)

“The Consilience Project is focused on research, publication and the building of a decentralized movement towards enhanced collective intelligence. At the heart of the project is a series of interconnected articles called the Consilience Papers. Once complete, these articles will constitute an open curriculum that covers humanity’s current risk landscape, the inadequacy of existing social institutions, and the theoretical basis of the social technologies of the future. Over the next five years, we will share the ideas within the Consilience Papers through a variety of platforms and provide support to aligned projects and initiatives. Through our growing network, we aim to guide decision-makers, cultural influencers, and eventually everyone in society towards the issues necessary to address the unique challenges of our time.

All of our content is and always will be free and accessible to everyone, because we believe that universal access to high quality information is critical for the functioning of open societies. To protect the quality and integrity of what we do, we will not accept funding from sources that seek any kind of influence through their support. Guided by an ethical framework, we will develop and share the Consilience Papers in order to articulate the potential criteria for the next phase of civilization design. Our aspiration is to help people to develop the knowledge, understanding, and societal awareness needed for a new kind of emergent governance that will increase meaningful quality of life for all.”

Credibility of scientific information on social media: Variation by platform, genre and presence of formal credibility cues | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press

Abstract:  Responding to calls to take a more active role in communicating their research findings, scientists are increasingly using open online platforms, such as Twitter, to engage in science communication or to publicize their work. Given the ease with which misinformation spreads on these platforms, it is important for scientists to present their findings in a manner that appears credible. To examine the extent to which the online presentation of science information relates to its perceived credibility, we designed and conducted two surveys on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the first survey, participants rated the credibility of science information on Twitter compared with the same information in other media, and in the second, participants rated the credibility of tweets with modified characteristics: presence of an image, text sentiment, and the number of likes/retweets. We find that similar information about scientific findings is perceived as less credible when presented on Twitter compared to other platforms, and that perceived credibility increases when presented with recognizable features of a scientific article. On a platform as widely distrusted as Twitter, use of these features may allow researchers who regularly use Twitter for research-related networking and communication to present their findings in the most credible formats.

 

Research data communication strategy at the time of pandemics: a retrospective analysis of the Italian experience | Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease

Abstract:  Coronavirus pandemic has radically changed the scientific world. During these difficult times, standard peer-review processes could be too long for the continuously evolving knowledge about this disease. We wanted to assess whether the use of other types of network could be a faster way to disseminate the knowledge about Coronavirus disease. We retrospectively analyzed the data flow among three distinct groups of networks during the first three months of the pandemic: PubMed, preprint repositories (biorXiv and arXiv) and social media in Italy (Facebook and Twitter). The results show a significant difference in the number of original research articles published by PubMed and preprint repositories. On social media, we observed an incredible number of physicians participating to the discussion, both on three distinct Italian-speaking Facebook groups and on Twitter. The standard scientific process of publishing articles (i.e., the peer-review process) remains the best way to get access to high-quality research. Nonetheless, this process may be too long during an emergency like a pandemic. The thoughtful use of other types of network, such as preprint repositories and social media, could be taken into consideration in order to improve the clinical management of COVID-19 patients.

 

Demand five precepts to aid social-media watchdogs

“I propose the following. First, give researchers access to the same targeting tools that platforms offer to advertisers and commercial partners. Second, for publicly viewable content, allow researchers to combine and share data sets by supplying keys to application programming interfaces. Third, explicitly allow users to donate data about their online behaviour for research, and make code used for such studies publicly reviewable for security flaws. Fourth, create safe-haven protections that recognize the public interest. Fifth, mandate regular audits of algorithms that moderate content and serve ads….

Part of the solution is to create legal systems, not just technical ones, that distinguish between bad intent and legitimate, public-spirited research that can help to uncover social media’s effects on economies and societies.

 

The influence of social-media companies is undeniable, and executives such as Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg sincerely believe that their platforms make the world a better place. But they have been unwilling to give researchers the data to demonstrate whether this is so. It is time for society to demand access to those data.”