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
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2021
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
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.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
Türk Hijyen ve Deneysel Biyoloji Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
78
Sayı
4
