{"title":"Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis.","authors":"Aleksander Stupnicki, Basil Suresh, Saurabh Jain","doi":"10.2196/50698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11208826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/50698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
