Yazar "Demirbilek, Mahmut" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    An altmetric study: Social attention based evaluation of top-100 publications about the COVID-19 pandemic from notification of the first case to the 6th month
    (2021) Dokur, Mehmet; Baysoy, Nüket Güler; Uysal, Betül Borku; Karadağ, Mehmet; Demirbilek, Mahmut
    Objective: Altmetrics, or alternative-metrics, have\rrecently emerged as a web-based metrics measuring the\rimpact of an individual article in social media accounts\rwith an emphasis on the public attention/engagement\rwith the research output. Aim of this study is to perform\rmid-2020 altmetric analysis of top-100 articles about\rCOVID-19 that provoked the most online attention.\rMethods: Altmetric Explorer search was performed\rin June 3th ,2020. After ranked by altmetric attention\rscore (AAS: an automatically calculated weighted count\rof all of the attention a research output has received in\rsocial media), articles that are not related by COVID-19\rwere excluded and the first-100 COVID-19-related\rarticles were analyzed. Variables evaluated were (I)\rAAS, (II) dimensions-badge (interactive visualizations\rthat showcase the citation data origins for individual\rpublications), (III) month of publication, (IV) distribution\rof web-sources, (V) demographic-breakdown type\rdistributions of citations, (VI) geographic-breakdown\rtype distributions of citations, (VII) level-of-evidence\r(decided using SIGN-Criteria) (VIII) Q-categories ofscientific journals, and (IX) h-index. Descriptive and\rcorrelational statistics were performed. Kruskal-Wallis\rtest was used for AAS and dimensions-badge value\rcomparisons while post-hoc analyses were performed\rby Dunn test. Spearman correlation coefficients were\rcalculated to detect linear relationship between\rnumerical variables. Analyses were performed by SPSS-\r23.0 and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.\rResults: Most (74%) of the disseminated articles\rwere published in Q1-journals while evidence levels were\rmostly level-3/level-4. Content of the first 3 articles was\rabout the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions,\rorigin of COVID-19 and chloroquine usage, respectively.\rThere was no significant difference between AAS in\rdifferent months (p=0.673) but dimensions-badges in\rJanuary were significantly higher (p<0.05). There was a\rweak positive correlation between AAS and dimensionsbadge\r(r=0.250; p=0.017).\rConclusion: Dimensions-badge and AAS results\rrevealed that academia discussed COVID-19 much more\rin the first-month of pandemic, but then interests\rcontinued parallelly in academia and other social media\rplatforms, including public. Academicians have discussed\rexperiences of large-patient series but public preferred\rwhat is potentially protective or risky for them. Although\renormously fast accumulation and dissemination of\rnew scientific publications were witnessed, it seems\rsens-clinique rather than strict evidence-based-advice\rtransferred to journals. Because infodemic is another\remerging problem, every scientist should be ethically\rmore responsible about the publication they choose\rto disseminate. Interpretations/public-messages of\rscientists might also be critical, given the fact that only\r15% of discussed Covid-19 articles was in level-1/level-2\revidence.
  • [ N/A ]
    Öğe
    An altmetric study: Social attention based evaluation of top-100 publications about the COVID-19 pandemic from notification of the first case to the 6th month
    (Refik Saydam National Public Health Agency (RSNPHA), 2021) Dokur, Mehmet; Baysoy, Nüket Güler; Uysal, Betül Borku; Karadağ, Mehmet; Demirbilek, Mahmut
    Objective: Altmetrics, or alternative-metrics, have recently emerged as a web-based metrics measuring the impact of an individual article in social media accounts with an emphasis on the public attention/engagement with the research output. Aim of this study is to perform mid-2020 altmetric analysis of top-100 articles about COVID-19 that provoked the most online attention. Methods: Altmetric Explorer search was performed in June 3th,2020. After ranked by altmetric attention score (AAS: an automatically calculated weighted count of all of the attention a research output has received in social media), articles that are not related by COVID-19 were excluded and the first-100 COVID-19-related articles were analyzed. Variables evaluated were (I) AAS, (II) dimensions-badge (interactive visualizations that showcase the citation data origins for individual publications), (III) month of publication, (IV) distribution of web-sources, (V) demographic-breakdown type distributions of citations, (VI) geographic-breakdown type distributions of citations, (VII) level-of-evidence (decided using SIGN-Criteria) (VIII) Q-categories of scientific journals, and (IX) h-index. Descriptive and correlational statistics were performed. Kruskal-Wallis test was used for AAS and dimensions-badge value comparisons while post-hoc analyses were performed by Dunn test. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to detect linear relationship between numerical variables. Analyses were performed by SPSS23.0 and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Most (74%) of the disseminated articles were published in Q1-journals while evidence levels were mostly level-3/level-4. Content of the first 3 articles was about the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions, origin of COVID-19 and chloroquine usage, respectively. There was no significant difference between AAS in different months (p=0.673) but dimensions-badges in January were significantly higher (p<0.05). There was a weak positive correlation between AAS and dimensionsbadge (r=0.250; p=0.017). Conclusion: Dimensions-badge and AAS results revealed that academia discussed COVID-19 much more in the first-month of pandemic, but then interests continued parallelly in academia and other social media platforms, including public. Academicians have discussed experiences of large-patient series but public preferred what is potentially protective or risky for them. Although enormously fast accumulation and dissemination of new scientific publications were witnessed, it seems sens-clinique rather than strict evidence-based-advice transferred to journals. Because infodemic is another emerging problem, every scientist should be ethically more responsible about the publication they choose to disseminate. Interpretations/public-messages of scientists might also be critical, given the fact that only 15% of discussed Covid-19 articles was in level-1/level-2 evidence © 2021,Turk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi.All Rights Reserved