To evaluate the relationship between Twitter mentions and academic citations in otolaryngology literature.
Study Design
Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.
Setting
Altmetric Twitter mention and Google Scholar citation rosters.
Methods
Original research articles from 10 leading otolaryngology journals were assessed 26 months after print publication. Article Twitter mentions were tracked through the Altmetric Bookmarklet, and article citation data were determined through the Google Scholar search engine. Twitter mentions and citation metrics of articles were compared through 2-tailed t test analysis (P < .05).
Results
Of all articles, 50.7% (152/300) had at least 1 Twitter mention. Of all article Twitter mentions, 25% (432/1758) happened within the first week of online publication dates, while 64% (1130/1758) occurred between online and print publication dates. Articles mentioned on Twitter had 1.6-fold more Google Scholar citations (8.6 ± 0.7, mean ± SD) than articles with no Twitter mentions (5.4 ± 0.4, P < .01). A total of 8% (24/300) of publications were tweeted by their authors. Articles self-tweeted by authors were associated with an 8.4-citation increase (14.8 ± 3.1) for Google Scholar when compared with articles not shared by their authors on Twitter (6.4 ± 0.4; 2.3-fold increase, P < .01).
Conclusion
Most otolaryngology articles are disseminated over Twitter, with greatest Twitter activity occurring before print publication date of articles. Citations within 2 years of release are positively associated with the number of mentions on Twitter. Article Twitter mentions may augment the academic influence of otolaryngology publications.
EysenbachG.Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012
2.
KwokR.Research impact: altmetrics make their mark. Nature. 2013;500(7463):491-493. doi:10.1038/nj7463-491a
3.
SmithR.Measuring the social impact of research. BMJ. 2001;323(7312):528. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7312.528
4.
BornmannL.Measuring the societal impact of research: research is less and less assessed on scientific impact alone—we should aim to quantify the increasingly important contributions of science to society. EMBO Rep. 2012;13(8):673-676. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.99
StudenicPOspeltC.Do you tweet? Trailing the connection between Altmetric and research impact!RMD Open. 2020;6(3):e001034. doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001034
7.
KonkielS.Altmetrics: diversifying the understanding of influential scholarship. Palgrave Commun. 2016;2:16057. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.57
8.
CabreraDVartabedianBSSpinnerRJJordanBLAaseLATimimiFK.More than likes and tweets: creating social media portfolios for academic promotion and tenure. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(4):421-425. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-17-00171.1
9.
SherbinoJAroraVMVan MelleERogersRFrankJRHolmboeES.Criteria for social media–based scholarship in health professions education. Postgrad Med J. 2015;91(1080):551-555. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133300
10.
ChooEKRanneyMLChanTM, et al. Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: a guide for skeptics and novices. Med Teach. 2015;37(5):411-416. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371
11.
HayonSTripathiHStormontIMDunneMMNaslundMJSiddiquiMM.Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. Urology. 2019;123:28-33. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.041
LucJGYArcherMAAroraRC, et al. Does tweeting improve citations? One-year results from the TSSMN prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(1):296-300. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.04.065
14.
ParadisNKnollMAShahC, et al. Twitter: a platform for dissemination and discussion of scientific papers in radiation oncology. Am J Clin Oncol. 2020;43(6):442-445. doi:10.1097/COC.0000000000000685
15.
PozdnyakovAAbdullahPAlabousiM, et al. Relationship between Twitter and radiology journal citations. Radiology. Published online August10, 2021. doi:10.1148/radiol.2021204655
16.
ChungAWooH.Twitter in urology and other surgical specialties at global conferences. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(4):224-227. doi:10.1111/ans.13393
17.
WongKPiraquiveJLeviJR.Social media presence of otolaryngology journals: the past, present, and future. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(2):363-368. doi:10.1002/lary.26727
18.
XieDXDedmonMMO’ConnellBPYawnRJHaynesDS.Evaluation of social media presence of otolaryngology residency programs in the United States. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(9):802-806. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.1447
19.
PatroACarrSStevensMNLandeenKCCassNDHaynesDS.Otolaryngology residency program rankings and social media usage: a longitudinal analysis. Laryngoscope. Published online May17, 2021. doi:10.1002/lary.29621
20.
VillwockJAJohnsMM.Professional and patient engagement, visual abstracts, and applications to otolaryngology—social media’s siren call. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(10):865-866. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.1667
GehannoJFRollinLDarmoniS.Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews?BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:7. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-7
24.
KoushaKThelwallM.Sources of Google Scholar citations outside the Science Citation Index: a comparison between four science disciplines. Scientometrics. 2008;74:273-294. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0217-x
25.
BrighamTJ.An introduction to altmetrics. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(4):438-447. doi:10.1080/02763869.2014.957093
26.
HawnC.Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):361-368. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.361
27.
MicieliJATsuiE.Ophthalmology on social networking sites: an observational study of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:285-290. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S79032
28.
NasonGJO’KellyFKellyME, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU Int. 2015;115(3):486-490. doi:10.1111/bju.12840
29.
PriemJCostelloKL.How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proc Am Soc Info Sci Tech. 2010;47:1-4. doi:10.1002/meet.14504701201
30.
GarfieldE.The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90-93. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90
31.
HirschJE.An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102
32.
PershadYHanggePTAlbadawiHOkluR.Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med. 2018;7(6):121. doi:10.3390/jcm7060121
33.
OyewumiMLeeJVescanA.Social media in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. Ear Nose Throat J. 2017;96(9):E29-E33.
34.
HarleyEHJr.The increasing role of social media in otolaryngology. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(3):203-204. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2018.4035
35.
AhmadmehrabiSXieDXWardBKBrysonPCByrneP.OHNS residency program and applicant social media presence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. Published online January16, 2021. doi:10.1177/0003489420987977
36.
Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings. Virtual program. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://cosm.md/program/
37.
StonemanSHiremathS.Twitter-based journal clubs: bringing critical appraisal to the social table. Semin Nephrol. 2020;40(3):264-272. doi:10.1016/j.semnephrol.2020.04.004
38.
ThangasamyIALeveridgeMDaviesBJFinelliAStorkBWooHH.International urology journal club via Twitter: 12-month experience. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):112-117. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.034
39.
SternbergKMLoebSLCanesDDonnellyLTsaiMH.The use of Twitter to facilitate sharing of clinical expertise in urology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(2):183-186. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx055
40.
LeeSIBluemkeDA.Social media offers academia a tool. Radiology. Published online August10, 2021. doi:10.1148/radiol.2021211413
