Online Attention to Cochlear Implant Research: Altmetric and Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

Objective: Assessing the quality of scientific publications accurately and objectively is critical. This study analyzes the most cited articles on cochlear implants using altmetrics (alternative metrics) and traditional metrics. Materials and Methods: A basic search was conducted in the Web of Science database using the term “cochlear implant.” The analysis included the year of publication, years since publication, number of citations, and average number of citations per year for each publication. Additionally, the impact factor (IF), 5-year IF, Q category of the journals, and altmetric scores (ASs) were evaluated. Results: ASs showed significant correlations with the number of citations, IF, 5-year IF, and publication year. Notably, open-access articles constituted 68% of the total. However, no significant differences were observed between open-access and nonopen-access articles concerning citations (p=0.489) or ASs (p=0.735), respectively. Conclusion: Although altmetrics are currently viewed as complementary to traditional metrics, it exhibits potential for increased importance over time.

Keywords

• Audiology
• cochlear implants
• bibliometrics
• social media
• altmetric

References

1. Collins CS, Singh NP, Ananthasekar S, Boyd CJ, Brabston E, King TW. The Correlation between Altmetric Score and Traditional Bibliometrics in Orthopaedic Literature. J Surg Res 2021;268:705-11. google scholar
2. Chang J, Desai N, Gosain A. Correlation between altmetric score and citations in pediatric surgery core journals. J Surg Res 2019;243:52-8. google scholar
3. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. (2010), Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (viewed February 16, 2021). google scholar
4. Melero R. Altmetrics-a complement to conventional metrics. Biochem Med 2015;25(2):152-60. google scholar
5. Nicholson N, Smith SL. How to document scientific and clinical impact of research: Six steps to success. ASHA Perspectives 2022;7(3):679-95. google scholar
6. Puschmann C. (Micro)Blogging Science? Notes on Potentials and Constraints of New Forms of Scholarly Communication. In: Bartling, S, Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science. Springer, Cham. 2014; 89-106. google scholar
7. Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff 2009;28(2):361-8. google scholar
8. Gordon D. 1 In 10 Americans Turn To Social Media For Health Information, New Survey Shows 2021. https://www.forbes. com/sites/debgordon/2021/10/06/1-in-10-americans-turn-to-social-media-for-health-information-new-survey-shows/?sh=339b92e3d934. google scholar

9. Crowson MG, Tucci DL, Kaylie D. Hearing loss on social media: Who is winning hearts and minds? Laryngoscope 2018;128(6):1453-61. google scholar
10. Maggio LA, Leroux TC, Meyer HS, Artino Jr AR. #MedEd: exploring the relationship between altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education. Perspect Med Educ 2018;7(4):239-47. google scholar
11. Nocera AP, Boyd CJ, Boudreau H, Hakim O, Rais-Bahrami S. Examining the correlation between altmetric score and citations in the urology literature. Urology 2019;134:45-50. google scholar
12. Boyd CJ, Ananthasekar S, Kurapati S, King TW. Examining the correlation between altmetric score and citations in the plastic surgery literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020;146(6):808e-15e. google scholar
13. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Rep 2014;15(12):1228-32. google scholar
14. Levy J. Social media for scientists. Nat Cell Biol 2018;20:1329. google scholar
15. DeAtkine AB, Grayson JW, Singh NP, Nocera AP, Rais-Bahrami S, Greene BJ. # ENT: Otolaryngology residency programs create social media platforms to connect with applicants during COVID-19 pandemic. Ear, Nose Throat J 2023;102(1):35-9. google scholar
16. Kunze KN, Vadhera A, Purbey R, Singh H, Kazarian GS, Chahla J. Infographics are more effective at increasing social media attention in comparison with original research articles: an altmetrics-based analysis. Arthroscopy 2021;37(8):2591-7. google scholar
17. Krittanawong C, Narasimhan B, Virk HUH, Narasimhan H, Hahn J, Wang Z, et al. Misinformation dissemination in twitter in the COVID-19 era. Am J Med 2020;133(12):1367-9. google scholar
18. Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Downing J, Seguı' FL. COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(5):e19458. google scholar
19. Antelman K. Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries 2004;65(5):372-82. google scholar
20. Harnad S, Brody T. Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. Dlib Mag 2004;10(6):1-3. google scholar
21. Silva DdO, Taborda B, Pazzinatto MF, Ardern CL, Barton CJ. The altmetric score has a stronger relationship with article citations than journal impact factor and open access status: a cross-sectional analysis of 4022 sport sciences articles. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):536-41. google scholar
22. Patel RB, Vaduganathan M, Bhatt DL, Bonow RO. Characterizing high-performing articles by Altmetric score in major cardiovascular journals. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3(12):1249-51. google scholar
23. Santos R, Ursu O, Gaulton A, Bento AP, Donadi RS, Bologa CG, et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2017;16(1):19-34. google scholar
24. Schenone M, Dancık V, Wagner BK, Clemons PA. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 2013;9(4):232-40. google scholar
25. Pendlebury DA. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 2009;57(1):1-11. google scholar
26. Joshi MA. Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientific publications. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(2):258. google scholar
27. Zhan YX, Tritz D, Natarajan K, Som M, Vassar M. Evaluation of articles in metabolism research on the basis of their citations. Biochem Med 2021;31(1):9-14. google scholar
28. Dong P, Loh M, Mondry A. The” impact factor” revisited. Biomed Digit Lib 2005;2(1):1-8. google scholar
29. Paulus FM, Cruz N, Krach S. The impact factor fallacy. Front Psychol 2018;9:1487. google scholar
30. Juyal D, Thawani V, Sayana A, Pal S. Impact factor: Mutation, manipulation, and distortion. J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8(11):3475. google scholar
31. Chien TW, Wang HY, Kan WC, Su SB. Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display: a bibliometric analysis. Medicine 2019;98(43):1-11. google scholar
32. Rogers LF. Impact factor: the numbers game. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(3):541-2. google scholar
33. Thelwall M. The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Schol Assess Rep 2020;2(1):2. google scholar
34. Holmberg K, Bowman S, Bowman T, Didegah F, Kortelainen T. What is societal impact and where do Altmetrics fit into the equation? Altmetrics 2019;2(1):1-11. google scholar