A comparison of the top 500 papers in Clinical Nutrition ranked by citation and Altmetric Attention Scores.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Citation scores (CS) have been traditionally used to measure the impact of scientific publications. Sourced from the Internet, Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) are complementary metrics that assess how often publications are discussed and used globally. We compared by rank the top 500 papers by CS and AAS published in Clinical Nutrition with corresponding AAS and CS. METHODS: A search for all publications in Clinical Nutrition was performed on Dimensions (https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication) on 3rd April 2024. Outputs were ranked according to CS and then by AAS with the top 500 in each category selected. Scores, year and type of publication were recorded. Correlation was expressed as the Spearman's rank coefficient (ϱ). RESULTS: We identified 18,790 outputs. Within the top 500 publications ranked by CS, there was a significant weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.235, P < 0.0001) between CS [median (IQR) 149 (116-223)] and AAS [7 (3-22)]. Ranked by AAS, there was a non-significant very weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.072, P = 0.106) between AAS [55.5 (36-115)] and CS [42 (16.5-94.5)]. Trends remained similar when grouped by publication type. Guidelines, ranked by CS, had the highest CS and ranked by AAS, the highest CS and AAS. Publications per year, by year, ranked by CS, had a negatively skewed distribution peaking in 2012 and declined thereafter, but when ranked by AAS, had a moderately positive linear trend from 2001 to 2024 (ϱ = 0.513, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Correlation between CS and AAS was weak. Guidelines had the highest CS and AAS. CS are iterative taking years to mature while AAS are immediate.

Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online? METHODS: The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using "strabismus" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms. RESULTS: A weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55). CONCLUSIONS: While clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.

25 years of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR): A modern bibliometric and Altmetrics network analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter-century of CIDRR's scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal's overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry. RESULTS: Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in "Dentistry (miscellaneous)" and "Oral Surgery" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. "Implant system/design/characteristics," "Bone Augmentation," and "Implant Prosthesis" were the top most investigated topics. CONCLUSIONS: The examination of the journal's initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high-level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country- and author-collaboration networks. However, the journal's social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal's scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology: A Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis from 2005 to 2022.

This study aimed to present a bibliometric and altmetric Analyses of the Iranian Journal of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (IJAAI). The citation performance and altmetric data were extracted from Scopus and Altmetric Explorer, respectively. Analyses were done using SPSS 26, Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace. The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed that IJAAI had experienced respectable growth. Among the total citations, 4746 citations belong to the first decade (2005-2014) and 3,035 citations belong to the second (2015-2022). The findings demonstrated the significance of IJAAI among Iranian researchers. Pourpak, Z (66; 6.57%) is the top-producing author in IJAAI. The examination of research institutions reveals that the Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) is ranked first. The most highly cited article in IJAAI over the past 18 years is a review article which has received 138 citations. IJAAI is ranked first at the citing source and journal level, with the most citations (249 citations) to IJAAI. Iran has collaborated with 13 other countries. Overall, the analysis of co-occurred keywords indicates that IJAAI authors have used the following three high-frequency and important keywords: Asthma (162), Inflammation (48), and Multiple sclerosis (40). Co-citation analysis results demonstrated that a total of 6,718 sources were cited in this journal. The results of the altmetric analysis show that IJAAI has a reasonably low presence across various social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Mendeley, news and blogs. This study aids researchers in exploring and identifying emerging trends in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology.

Which Topics Drive Dissemination? Alternative Bibliometrics Analysis of the Highest-Ranking Articles in 3 Infectious Diseases Journals Before COVID-19.

Dissemination of research is paramount to improving patient care. Historically, dissemination is reported in conventional bibliometrics. However, with the increased utilization of digital platforms for communication, alternative bibliometrics describe more real-time dissemination of information. This study documents dissemination of publication topics in infectious diseases journals prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of Twitter/X promotion on visibility of research articles: Results of the #TweetTheJournal study.

Aim: Social media (SoMe) are emerging as important tools for research dissemination. Twitter/X promotion has been shown to increase citation rates in well-established journals. We aimed to test the effect of a SoMe promotion strategy on the Mendeley reader counts, the Altmetric Attention Score and the number of citations in an upcoming open-access journal. Methods: The #TweetTheJournal study is a randomized, controlled study. Articles published in seven subsequent issues of the International Journal of Cardiology Heart & Vasculature (April 2021-April 2022) were randomized to a Twitter/X promotion arm (articles were posted four times) and to a control arm (without active posting). Articles with accompanied editorials were excluded. Primary endpoint of the study was Mendeley reader count, secondary endpoints were Altmetric Attention Score and number of citations. Follow-up was one year. Results: SoMe promotion of articles showed no statistically significant difference in Mendeley reader counts or number of citations at one year follow up. SoMe promotion resulted in a statistically significant higher Altmetric Attention Score in the intervention compared to the control group (RR 1.604, 95 % CI 1.024-2.511, p = 0.039). In the overall group, Altmetric Attention Score showed a correlation with Mendeley reader counts (Spearman's ρ = 0.202, p = 0.010) and Mendeley reader counts correlated significantly with number of citations (Spearman's ρ = 0.372, p < 0.001). Conclusion: A dedicated SoMe promotion strategy did not result in statistically significant differences in early impact indicators as the Mendeley reader count in a upcoming journal, but increased the Altmetric Attention Score.

Measuring the impact of scientific publications and publication extenders: examples of novel approaches.

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.

Different readers have different ways of deciding how important scientific articles are. The usual methods used to measure the impact of research, like the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not meant to measure this for individual articles. These methods mainly look at how many times the articles are mentioned by others, and it can take a long time to see the impact.But in the past ten years, new tools called article-level metrics (ALMs) have been created. These tools measure how much attention an article gets online, like on social media, in the news, or when other researchers talk about it. ALMs are better at explaining how important a specific article is. They can work together with the usual methods to measure impact.This paper talks about why ALMs are important and gives examples of these tools, like PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. It also explains how these tools can help us see the value of animations, videos, or summaries in simple language. These make it easier for more people to understand and learn from the articles.These new ways of measuring impact can help us see how important articles are in a more complete way. But because there are many different ways to measure this, it's important for users to understand which methods are relevant for a specific article and keep track of them.

The correlation between altmetric score and traditional measures of article impact for studies pertaining to spine trauma.

PURPOSE: It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to share scientific literature via social media. Traditional bibliometrics have long been utilized to measure a study's academic impact, but they fail to capture the impact generated through social media sharing. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a weighted count of all the online attention garnered by a study, and it is currently unclear whether a relationship with traditional bibliometrics exists. METHODS: We identified the five highest-rated spine-specific and five highest-rated general orthopedic journals by Scopus CiteScore 2020. We then identified all the spine trauma studies across a 5-year span (2016-2020) within these journals and compared AAS with traditional bibliometrics using Independent t-tests and Pearson's correlational analyses. RESULTS: No statistically significant relationships were identified between AAS and traditional bibliometrics for articles pertaining to spine trauma: Level of Evidence (R = - 0.02, p = 0.34), H-Index Primary Author (R = < - 0.01, p = 0.50), H-Index Senior Author (R = - 0.04, p = 0.24), and Number of Citations (R = 0.01, p = 0.40). The top five articles by AAS include those pertaining to motorcycle injuries (AAS = 687), orthosis in thoracolumbar fractures (AAS = 199), golfing injuries (AAS = 166), smartphone-based teleradiology (AAS = 41), and auto racing injuries (AAS = 39). CONCLUSION: The lack of overlap between these types of metrics suggests that AAS or similar alternative metrics should be used to measure an article's social impact. The social impact of an article should likewise be a factor in determining an article's overall impact along with its academic impact as measured by bibliometrics.

Corrigendum: Corrigendum: Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/frma.2023.1295959.].

Shaping Social Media: Is Twitter an Equitable tool for Professional Development?

PURPOSE: Twitter has become a powerful tool for professional development in academia. However, studies from the general population suggest that racialized and gender biases disproportionately empower male and white users. We characterized the demographics of Twitter influencers in Canadian healthcare. METHODS: We used the Right Relevance Insight API algorithm to identify Twitter influencers in the healthcare, healthcare research, and health policy domains, and to generated normalized influencer scores based on user connections and engagement. We used facial recognition software to approximate the influencers' race and sex. RESULTS: The majority of influencers identified were white (84%) and/or male (60%). Males had significantly higher influencer scores than females (65.1 ± 8.0 vs. 61.2 ± 6.2, P < 0.05) in health policy. We did not identify any sex- or race-associated disparities among influencers in healthcare or healthcare research. CONCLUSION: Male users have significantly higher levels of influence in health policy on Twitter. Given the importance of Twitter as a tool for professional development, it is crucial that institutional leaders and policymakers are aware of potential inequities in user reach. Future studies should evaluate additional factors shaping user influence in healthcare on Twitter, with a focus on equity, diversity, and trustworthiness.

Research impact in randomized controlled trials of diabetes: an altmetric approach.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of research in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of diabetes and explore the various subject areas related to diabetes that receive attention on social media platforms. Altmetric measures were utilized to collect and extract relevant data, providing valuable insights into the social reach and influence of clinical research beyond traditional citation-based metrics. Methods: The research focused on RCTs of diabetes involving at least one Iranian author, indexed in Scopus. Altmetric.com was employed to extract altmetric data, and the collected articles were categorized into 14 subject areas for individual analysis using STATA. Results: The analysis revealed that a majority of the diabetes studies examined nutrition, complications, treatment, genetics, basic mechanisms, and comorbidities of the disease. Conversely, subject areas such as diagnosis, education, gestational diabetes, psychology, physical activity, prevention, dentistry, and economics had fewer studies associated with them. Among social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and Reddit emerged as the most frequently mentioned platforms. Furthermore, Mendeley readership was identified as the preferred platform for engagement across several subject areas. Conclusions: The substantial number of social media mentions indicates a significant level of public interest and concern regarding diabetes. Social media platforms serve as effective tools for disseminating research findings from clinical trials. Altmetric data proves valuable to researchers and funding agencies seeking to comprehend the impact of their work, enabling them to allocate resources more effectively.

Corrigendum: Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/frma.2023.1188131.].

Promotion of a neurosurgical academic journal on social media: a 1-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Social media (SoMe) use, in all of its forms, has seen massively increased throughout the past two decades, including academic publishing. Many journals have established a SoMe presence, yet the influence of promotion of scientific publications on their visibility and impact remains poorly studied. The European Journal of Neurosurgery «Acta Neurochirurgica¼ has established its SoMe presence in form of a Twitter account that regularly promotes its publications. We aim to analyze the impact of this initial SoMe campaign on various alternative metrics (altmetrics). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all articles published in the journal Acta Neurochirurgica between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2020, was performed. These articles were divided into a historical control group - containing the articles published between May 1st, 2018, and April 30th, 2019, when the SoMe campaign was not yet established - and into an intervention group. Several altmetrics were analyzed, along with website visits and PDF downloads per month. RESULTS: In total, 784 articles published during the study period, 128 (16.3%) were promoted via Twitter. During the promotion period, 29.7% of published articles were promoted. Overall, the published articles reached a mean of 31.3 ± 50.5 website visits and 17.5 ± 31.25 PDF downloads per month. Comparing the two study periods, no statistically significant differences in website visits (26.91 ± 32.87 vs. 34.90 ± 61.08, p = 0.189) and PDF downloads (17.52 ± 31.25 vs. 15.33 ± 16.07, p = 0.276) were detected. However, overall compared to non-promoted articles, promoted articles were visited (48.9 ± 95.0 vs. 29.0 ± 37.0, p = 0.005) and downloaded significantly more (25.7 ± 66.7 vs. 16.6 ± 18.0, p = 0.045) when compared to those who were not promoted during the promotion period. CONCLUSIONS: We report a 1-year initial experience with promotion of a general neurosurgical journal on Twitter. Our data suggest a clear benefit of promotion on article site visits and article downloads, although no single responsible element could be determined in terms of altmetrics. The impact of SoMe promotion on other metrics, including traditional bibliometrics such as citations and journal impact factor, remains to be determined.

The impact of a dedicated social media strategy on enhancing surgical education.

PURPOSE: Social media (SoMe) is increasingly important in surgical education and may be necessary in the current learning environment. Whilst expanding in use and applications, few studies detail the impact of SoMe on measurable outcomes. The goal of this study was to quantify the impact of a dedicated SoMe strategy on engagement metrics for surgical research. METHODS: A retrospective review of a peer-reviewed surgical journal's Twitter microblog platform (@ColorectalDis) was performed from 6/2015 to 4/2021. A formal SoMe strategy was introduced in September 2018. Data were stratified into 2 time periods: pre-intervention (6-2015 to 9-2018) and post-SoMe intervention (9-2018 to 4-2021). The main outcome was the impact of the SoMe strategy on user engagement with the Twitter platform, journal, and traditional journal metrics. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy were used to analyse engagement. RESULTS: From conception to analysis, the microblog published 1198 original tweets, generating 5 million impressions and 231,000 engagements. Increased account activity (increased tweets published per month-5.51 vs 28.79; p < 0.01) was associated with significant engagement growth, including new monthly followers (213 vs 38; p < 0.01) and interactions with posted articles (4,096,167 vs 269,152; p < 0.01). Article downloads increased twenty-fold post-SoMe intervention (210,449 vs 10,934; p < 0.01), with significant increases in traditional journal metrics of new subscribers (+11%), article submissions (+24%), and impact factor (+0.9) (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: SoMe directly impacts traditional journal metrics in surgical research. By examining the patterns of user engagement between SoMe and journal sites, the growing beneficial impact of a structured social media strategy and SoMe as an educational tool is demonstrated.

Evaluation of the correlation between Altmetric attention score and citation number of top 50 articles in hip fractures: a cross-sectional study.

Background: Publications quality evaluation gets more attention nowadays, because of its impact on researchers ranking and academic journals. Beside traditional bibliometric tools, altemetric metrics have been introduced as tools to evaluate the dissemination of a study by the number of views, mentions, and posts on different websites and social medias. Method: In this study, the authors evaluate the correlation between citation number as a traditional tool and altmetric attention score (AAS) as a new method. Scopus database was searched to find the 50 most cited manuscripts on "hip fractures" title from January 2015 to December 2020. After excluding irrelevant subjects, AAS of included articles was collected from the Altmetric.com website. At the last stage, the data were analyzed using statistical tests. Results: According to statistical analysis, R 2 was 0.121, and the P-value was 0.017, which shows a weak but statistically significant relationship between citation and AAS. The relationship between the number of mentions on Twitter and the AAS was linear.The differences observed between the two groups were significant only in "Readers on Mendeley" and "Dimensions". Results shown that the impact factor of the journal and the AAS of articles had no significant relationship (R 2=0.001, P-value=0.986). Conclusion: Findings showed that social media does not seem to be ineffective in disseminating published articles. It has also been shown that Twitter can play a significant role in the propagation of articles on social networks. It is not unreasonable to say that the accessibility of a journal affects the dissemination of an article on social media. In the end, the authors found that the impact factor of the journal could not significantly affect the AAS.

Use of Social Media in Stroke: A Systematic Review.

Background: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability globally. Over the last decade, digital health and related technology has emerged as a useful adjunct in the management of persons with stroke, particularly with the development of a large number of mobile phone applications dedicated to various aspects of stroke. However, whether social media can provide similar key support in stroke is an intriguing question. In this systematic review, we aimed to the scope and limits of social media platforms in care and research pertinent to persons with stroke. Methods: PubMed database was searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and exploded keywords. The search retrieved 556 abstracts, which were screened by two reviewers. Of these, 14 studies met the review inclusion criteria. Given the small number of studies and heterogeneity of outcomes, quantitative analysis was not possible. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022324384). Results: The social media platforms employed by the included studies comprised YouTube (n = 5), Twitter (n = 5), Facebook (n = 2), both Twitter and Facebook (n = 1), and WhatsApp (n = 1). Four assessed quality and accuracy of videos on YouTube available for stoke patients and caregivers. Three used social media to research link between role of gender and stroke descriptors on social media platforms, and one studied Twitter-derived racial/ethnic perceptual construction on the occurrence of cardiovascular disease. Three studies described use of social media by stroke survivors, in post-stroke care and engagement. 11 studies were assessed to be of "fair" quality and three were assessed to be of "poor" quality. Conclusions: Limited preliminary data of low quality indicates that social media is used by persons with stroke and their caregivers, and may be harnessed as a tool of education and research. Future studies must address the current lack of high-quality evidence for the use of social media in stroke care.

Altmetric analysis of the most mentioned articles online in the orthopaedic literature.

Social media has become a valuable tool for the distribution of scientific content. This investigation examined the most mentioned articles in orthopaedics and identified factors concurrent with greater dissemination. Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), which measures the online attention of an article, was examined for 88,683 publications in the top 50 orthopaedic journals by 2021 impact factor. Comparative and correlational analyses were completed. Overall, average AAS and citation count of the 100 most mentioned articles were 606.7 (SD ± 272.0) and 67.55 (SD ± 98.01), respectively. These articles had primarily male first authors (75%), were produced predominantly in the United States (60%), concerned the subspecialty of sports medicine (28%), and were cross-sectional analyses (22%). There were significant differences in AAS between publications (p < 0.05) by the degree of collaboration and the type of article. Such insights can guide authors when considering avenues to increase the impact of their research.

Evaluative altmetrics: is there evidence for its application to research evaluation?

Introduction: Altmetrics have been demonstrated as a promising tool for analyzing scientific communication on social media. Nevertheless, its application for research evaluation remains underdeveloped, despite the advancement of research in the study of diverse scientific interactions. Methods: This paper develops a method for applying altmetrics in the evaluation of researchers, focusing on a case study of the Environment/Ecology ESI field publications by researchers at the University of Granada. We considered Twitter as a mirror of social attention, news outlets as media, and Wikipedia as educational, exploring mentions from these three sources and the associated actors in their respective media, contextualizing them using various metrics. Results: Our analysis evaluated different dimensions such as the type of audience, local attention, engagement generated around the mention, and the profile of the actor. Our methodology effectively provided dashboards that gave a comprehensive view of the different instances of social attention at the author level. Discussion: The use of altmetrics for research evaluation presents significant potential, as shown by our case study. While this is a novel method, our results suggest that altmetrics could provide valuable insights into the social attention that researchers garner. This can be an important tool for research evaluation, expanding our understanding beyond traditional metrics.

The top 100 most cited Mohs micrographic surgery articles: an analysis of Altmetrics data from 2010 to 2020.

With skin cancer rates rising, there is a consistent stream of literature published on Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). However, there are no studies examining MMS article visibility and readership patterns. The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is a metric that quantifies article distribution on media platforms. We analyzed the 100 most cited MMS publications from 2010 to 2020 and constructed multivariate regression models using top 25th percentile AASs and mentions on Facebook, Twitter, and new outlets as outcome variables. Articles with an AAS in the top 25th quartile consistently performed better with higher citations, Twitter mentions, Facebook mentions, and journal impact factors compared to articles in the lower three quartiles (53.8 vs 33.9; 4.68 vs 0.44; 0.32 vs 0.08; 53.5 vs 14.6; p < 0.05 for all). There were significantly lower female last authors versus males in the top quartile of AAS articles, with males 142 times more likely to have articles in the top quartile (p < 0.05). Studies comparing MMS to other surgical techniques and funded articles had higher odds of being in the top quartile of AASs (aOR 29.63 p < 0.05; aOR 74.50 p < 0.05). AASs can be useful to understand public interest, readership, and article features that influence the reach of MMS literature.

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ALTMETRIC, PLUMX METRICS AND CITATION COUNT OF PUBLICATIONS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY AMONG TOP CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY JOURNALS.

BACKGROUND: Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and PlumX Metrics are becoming important to evaluate the impact of the publication in addition to classical scientific rating method such as citation count and impact factor. These metrics collect data about publications' tweet count, Facebook interaction count and other social interactions. In this study, it is aimed to examine the association between AAS, PlumX Metrics and citation count of top child and adolescent psychiatry. METHODS: We identified the five journals and retrospectively analysed the publications published in 2019. All the original research articles, met analysis, and reviews were analysed. The articles were divided into two groups as original articles/research articles and meta-analysis/systematic review. We have hypothesized that there could be a positive correlation between AAS and PlumX Metrics data and citation count among these journals and there could be a difference between AAS, PlumX scores and citation count between original articles/research articles and meta-analysis/systematic review as their reading potential is different. RESULTS: We have found a significant positive correlation between citation count, AAS and PlumX Metrics. This association continued after controlling the journal impact factor. In linear regression analysis, type of publication, total count of tweets, and Mendeley reads predicted the citation count. CONCLUSION: In addition to the classical methods measuring the quality of the articles such as the total citation count and impact factor, the importance of AAS and PlumX Metrics has been increasing. It is important to share scientific publications on these platforms in order to increase the impact of the articles.