To identify research articles related to cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) that generated the highest online attention.
Methods:
Altmetric Explorer was used to identify the 100 articles with the highest Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Descriptive and correlation statistics were performed to study the characteristics of these articles in relation to their publication data, research type and domain, number of Mendeley readers, and dimensions citations. Citation counts were extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar.
Results:
The median AAS for the top 100 outputs was 22 (range from 12 to 458). The outputs were mostly discussed on Twitter (median = 8; range = 0-131). Topics discussing treatment and care for patients with CL/P accounted for 38% of the articles with the highest AAS followed by etiology and risk factors (32%). The majority of articles originated from the USA (46%) followed by Europe (16%) and the United Kingdom (15%). No significant differences were observed in AAS among different study designs, topic domains, journals’ ranking and impact factor, and the number of citations in Scopus and Google Scholar.
Conclusions:
Researchers should consider use of social platforms to disseminate their work among scholars and nonscholars. Altmetrics can be combined with traditional metrics for a more comprehensive assessment of research impact.
BakkalbasiNBauerKGloverJWangL. Three options for citation tracking: google scholar, scopus and web of science. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3:7–13. doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
5.
ChavdaJPatelA. Measuring research impact: bibliometrics, social media, Altmetrics, and the BJGP. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(642):e59–e61.
6.
CostasRZahediZWoutersP. Do Altmetrics correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of Altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst. 2015;66(10):2003–2019.
7.
CousijnHKenallAGanleyEHarrisonMKernohanDLembergerTMurphyFPolischukPTaylorSMartoneM, et al.A data citation roadmap for scientific publishers. Sci Data. 2018;5(1):180259.
8.
DardasLAWoodwardAScottJXuHSawairFA. Measuring the social impact of nursing research: an insight into altmetrics. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(7):1394–1405.
9.
DavisPMLewensteinBVSimonDHBoothJGConnollyMJ. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337(31):a568.
10.
DavisPMWaltersWH. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011;99(3):208–217.
11.
De GrooteSLShultzMSmalheiserNR. Examining the impact of the national institutes of health public access policy on the citation rates of journal articles. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139951.
12.
DelliKLivasCSpijkervetFKLVissinkA. Measuring the social impact of dental research: an insight into the most influential articles on the Web. Oral Dis. 2017;23(8):1155–1161.
13.
FeijooJFLimeresJFernández-VarelaMRamosIDizP. The 100 most cited articles in dentistry. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(3):699–706.
14.
FinchTOHanlonNDudleySP. Tweeting birds: online mentions predict future citations in ornithology. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4(11):171371.
15.
GarcovichDAusina MarquezVAdobesMM. The online attention to research in periodontology: an Altmetric study on the most discussed articles on the web. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(3):330–342.
16.
GunnW. Social signals reflect academic impact: what it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Inf Stand Q. 2013;25(2):33–39.
17.
HardwickeJNassimizadehMRichardB.Reporting of randomized controlled trials in cleft lip and palate: a 10-year review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(2):142–152.
18.
HassonaYQutachiTDardasLAlrashdanMSSawairF.The online attention to oral cancer research: an Altmetric analysis. Oral Dis. 2019;25(6):1502–1510.
19.
HausteinS. Readership metrics. In: CroninBSugimotoCR, eds. Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multi-Dimensional Indicators of Performance. MIT Press; 2014:327–344.
20.
HausteinSLarivièreVThelwallMAmyotDPetersI. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: how do these two social media metrics differ?IT. 2014;56(5):207–215.
21.
HuaFSunHWalshTWorthingtonHGlennyAM. Open access to journal articles in dentistry: prevalence and citation impact. J Dent. 2016;47(4):41–48.
22.
KadirAMosseyPABlencoweHMoorthieSLawnJEMastroiacovoPModellB. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the birth prevalence of orofacial clefts in low- and middle-income countries. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):571–581.
23.
KolahiJKhazaeiSIranmaneshPKhademiANekoofarMHDummerPMH. Altmetric analysis of the contemporary scientific literature in endodontology. Int Endod J. 2020;53(3):308–316.
24.
KolkailahAAFugarSVondeeNHirjiSAOkohAKAyoubAAl-OgailiAPaz RiosLHKumarSKCamachoMT, et al.Bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most cited articles in the first 50 years of heart transplantation. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(1):175–186.
25.
KulkarniAVAzizBShamsIBusseJW. Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092–1096.
26.
LaumonBMartinJLColletPBertucatIVerneyMPRobertE. Exposure to organic solvents during pregnancy and oral clefts: a case-control study. Reprod Toxicol. 1996;10(1):15–19.
LivasCDelliK.Looking beyond traditional metrics in orthodontics: an Altmetric study on the most discussed articles on the web. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(2):193–199.
29.
MaggioLALerouxTCMeyerHSArtinoARJr. #MedEd: exploring the relationship between Altmetrics and traditional measures of dissemination in health professions education. Perspect Med Educ. 2018;7(4):239–247.
30.
MasicI. The importance of proper citation of references in biomedical articles. Acta Inform Med. 2013;21(3):148–155.
31.
MosseyPALittleJMungerRGDixonMJShawWC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773–1785.
32.
PatelRBVaduganathanMBhattDLBonowRO. Characterizing high-performing articles by Altmetric score in major cardiovascular journals. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(12):1249.
33.
PiwowarH. Altmetrics: value all research products. Nature. 2013;493(7431):159–159.
34.
PiwowarHPriemJ. The power of Altmetrics on a CV. Bul Am Soc Info Sci Tech. 2013;39(4):10–13.
35.
PriemJPiwowarHHemmingerB.Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. 2012. Accessed April, 2020. http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745.
PuschmannC. (Micro)blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In: BartlingISFriesikeS. eds. Opening Science. Springer International Publishing; 2014: 89–106.
38.
RosenkrantzABAyoolaASinghKDuszakRJr. Alternative metrics (Altmetrics) for assessing article impact in popular general radiology journals. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(7):891–897.
39.
SchölinJSJonassonÅAxelssonJHavstamCPerssonCJönssonRMarkH. Surgical, speech, and hearing outcomes at five years of age in internationally adopted children and Swedish-born children with cleft lip and/or palate. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2020;54(1):6–13.
40.
ShuaibWCostaJL. Anatomy of success: 100 most cited articles in diabetes research. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2015;6(4):163–173.
41.
StockNMRumseyN. Starting a family: the experience of parents with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(4):425–436.
Tomlinson-HansenSPaligaJTTahiriYPaineKMBartlettSPTaylorJA. Economic analysis of cleft palate repair in international adoptees. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):503–507.
44.
WangJ. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics. 2013;94(3):851–872.
45.
WangLXueXZhangYLuoX. Exploring the emerging evolution trends of Urban resilience research by scientometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10):E2181.
46.
WarrenVTPatelBBoydCJ. Analyzing the relationship between Altmetric score and literature citations in the implantology literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(1):54–58.
47.
WellerKDrögeEPuschmannC.Citation analysis in Twitter: approaches for defining and measuring information flows within Tweets during scientific conferences. In: RoweMStankovicMDadzieASHardeyM, eds. Making Sense of Microposts (MSM2011). CEUR workshop proceedings; 2011: 1–12.
WoutersPCostasR.Users, Narcissism and Control—Tracking the Impact of Scholarly Publications in the 21st Century. SURF Foundation; 2012.
50.
ZhouJZLemelmanBTDoneNHendersonMLMacmillanASongDHDorafsharAH. Social media and the dissemination of research: insights from the most widely circulated articles in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(2):555–561.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
