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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |