The relationship between citations, downloads and alternative metrics in rheumatology publications: a bibliometric study

Winnie M Y Chen · Marwan A S Bukhari · Francesca Cockshull · James Benjamin Galloway

29 citations0/0 files storedLara D. Veeken

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Scientific journals and authors are frequently judged on 'impact'. Commonly used traditional metrics are the Impact Factor and H-index. However, both take several years to formulate and have many limitations. Recently, Altmetric-a metric that measures impact in a non-traditional way-has gained popularity. This project aims to describe the relationships between subject matter, citations, downloads and Altmetric within rheumatology. METHODS: Data from publications in Rheumatology were used. Articles published from 2010 to 2015 were reviewed. Data were analysed using Stata 14.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Correlation between citations, downloads and Altmetric were quantified using linear regression, comparing across disease topics. Relationship between downloads and months since publications were described using negative binomial regression, clustering on individual articles. RESULTS: A total of 1460 Basic Science and Clinical Science articles were identified, with the number of citations, downloads and Altmetric scores. There were no correlations between disease topic and downloads (R2 = 0.016, P = 0.03), citations (R2 = 0.011, P = 0.29) or Altmetric (R2 = 0.025, P = 0.02). A statistically significant positive association was seen between the number of citations and downloads (R2 = 0.29, P < 0.001). No correlations were seen between Altmetric and downloads (R2 = 0.028, P < 0.001) or citations (R2 = 0.004, P = 0.445). CONCLUSION: Disease area did not correlate with any of the metrics compared. Correlations were apparent with clear links between downloads and citations. Altmetric identified different articles as high impact compared with citation or download metrics. In conclusion: tweeting about your research does not appear to influence citations.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

2005An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output 2011Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact 2015Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics 2007The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level 2012How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations 2016The Use of Twitter by Radiology Journals: An Analysis of Twitter Activity and Impact Factor 2016The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score 2015Medical journals, impact and social media: an ecological study of the Twittersphere

Cited by

2024A multi-dimensional analysis of usage counts, Mendeley readership, and citations for journal and conference papers 2020Do you tweet?: trailing the connection between Altmetric and research impact!2020Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research 2021Alternative publication metrics in the time of COVID-19

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.