Cargando…

Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature

Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over tw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaul, Viren, Bhan, Rohit, Stewart, Nancy H., Behrens, Deanna M., Gutman, Amy, Dangayach, Neha, Geisler, Benjamin P., Carroll, Christopher L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32166269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000028
_version_ 1783504788233650176
author Kaul, Viren
Bhan, Rohit
Stewart, Nancy H.
Behrens, Deanna M.
Gutman, Amy
Dangayach, Neha
Geisler, Benjamin P.
Carroll, Christopher L.
author_facet Kaul, Viren
Bhan, Rohit
Stewart, Nancy H.
Behrens, Deanna M.
Gutman, Amy
Dangayach, Neha
Geisler, Benjamin P.
Carroll, Christopher L.
author_sort Kaul, Viren
collection PubMed
description Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over two time periods (2007–2011 and 2012–2016). There was a significant increase in the Altmetric Attention Score (52 from 2007 to 2011 vs 1,061 from 2012 to 2016; p < 0.001) but no significant differences in Total Citations, Impact Factor, or Eigenfactor. There was a strong positive correlation between citations and Altmetric Attention Score, negative correlations between Eigenfactor and Altmetric Attention Score for most journals, and no clear association between Impact Factor and Altmetric Attention Score. Over time, the digital reach of traditional publications has increased significantly, while no significant increase was noted for the traditional metrics. These findings likely reflect discussions of articles online that are not captured by traditional metrics and hence their impact on the community at large.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7063950
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70639502020-03-12 Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature Kaul, Viren Bhan, Rohit Stewart, Nancy H. Behrens, Deanna M. Gutman, Amy Dangayach, Neha Geisler, Benjamin P. Carroll, Christopher L. Crit Care Explor Original Report Our objective was to evaluate the association between traditional metrics such as Impact Factor and Eigenfactor with respect to alternative metrics. The Altmetric Attention Score for the top nine pulmonary and critical care journals was compared with Impact Factor, Eigenfactor, and citations over two time periods (2007–2011 and 2012–2016). There was a significant increase in the Altmetric Attention Score (52 from 2007 to 2011 vs 1,061 from 2012 to 2016; p < 0.001) but no significant differences in Total Citations, Impact Factor, or Eigenfactor. There was a strong positive correlation between citations and Altmetric Attention Score, negative correlations between Eigenfactor and Altmetric Attention Score for most journals, and no clear association between Impact Factor and Altmetric Attention Score. Over time, the digital reach of traditional publications has increased significantly, while no significant increase was noted for the traditional metrics. These findings likely reflect discussions of articles online that are not captured by traditional metrics and hence their impact on the community at large. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-08-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7063950/ /pubmed/32166269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000028 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Report
Kaul, Viren
Bhan, Rohit
Stewart, Nancy H.
Behrens, Deanna M.
Gutman, Amy
Dangayach, Neha
Geisler, Benjamin P.
Carroll, Christopher L.
Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title_full Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title_fullStr Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title_full_unstemmed Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title_short Study Comparing Traditional Versus Alternative Metrics to Measure the Impact of the Critical Care Medicine Literature
title_sort study comparing traditional versus alternative metrics to measure the impact of the critical care medicine literature
topic Original Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7063950/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32166269
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000028
work_keys_str_mv AT kaulviren studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT bhanrohit studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT stewartnancyh studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT behrensdeannam studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT gutmanamy studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT dangayachneha studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT geislerbenjaminp studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature
AT carrollchristopherl studycomparingtraditionalversusalternativemetricstomeasuretheimpactofthecriticalcaremedicineliterature