ABSTRACT
Background: The evaluation of scholarly articles' impact has been heavily based on the citation metrics despite the limitations of this approach. Therefore, the quest for meticulous and refined measures to evaluate publications' impact is warranted. Semantic Scholar (SS) is an artificial intelligence-based database that allegedly identifies influential citations defined as 'Highly Influential Citations';(HICs). Citations are considered highly influential according to SS when the cited publication has a significant impact on the citing publication (i.e., the citer uses or extends the cited work). Altmetrics are measures of online attention to research mined from activity in online tools and environments. Aims: The current study aimed to explore whether SS HICs provide an added value when it comes to measuring research impact compared to total citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods: Dimensions was used to generate the dataset for this study, which included COVID-19-related scholarly articles published by researchers affiliated to Jordanian institutions. Altmetric Explorer was selected as an altmetrics harvesting tool, while Semantic Scholar was used to extract details related to HICs. A total of 618 publications comprised the final dataset. Results: Only 4.57% (413/9029) of the total SS citations compiled in this study were classified as SS HICs. Based on SS categories of citations intent, 2626 were background citations (29.08%, providing historical context, justification of importance, and/or additional information related to the cited paper), 358 were result citations (3.97%, that extend on findings from research that was previously conducted), and 263 were method citations (2.91%, that use the previously established procedures or experiments to determine whether the results are consistent with findings in related studies). No correlation was found between HICs and AAS (r = 0.094). Manual inspection of the results revealed substantial contradictions, flaws, and inconsistencies in the SS HICs tool. Conclusions: The use of SS HICs in gauging research impact is significantly limited due to the enigmatic method of its calculation and total dependence on artificial intelligence. Along with the already documented drawbacks of total citation counts and AASs, continuous evaluation of the existing tools and the conception of novel approaches are highly recommended to improve the reliability of publication impact assessment.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The quarantine associated with the COVID-19 pandemic forced dental schools to suspend their clinical training and to shift to distant learning methods. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of quarantine on the self-perceived preparedness of dental graduates and to explore the efficacy of online education from students' perspectives. METHODS: The questionnaire distributed to dental students comprised of two main sections. The first part covered the online education experience, and the second part measured the level of self-perceived preparedness for a range of cognitive, communication and professional skills. RESULTS: The survey yielded a response rate of 72%. The majority of students (77%) agreed that they missed educational experiences as a result of the lockdown. More than half of them felt less motivated to follow-up with distant e-learning and believed that online assessment is not a good method for evaluation. A high percentage of the students (66%) thought that online group discussions had a positive value while 67% preferred online lectures compared to theatre lectures. Majority of students particularly 5th year (78.7%) (p < 0.001) stated that the quarantine increased their collaboration with their colleagues. According to 87% of students, the experience most negatively affected was their clinical training. In general, students showed satisfactory self-perceived preparedness related to a range of attributes and professional skills. CONCLUSIONS: The data showed that students partially appreciated the online system, whereas they did not consider it a substitute for face to face clinical practice. The overall self-perceived preparedness level was promising; however students had reservations regarding independent practice following graduation.