Hidayet Sener1, Osman Ahmet Polat2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Cukurca State Hospital, Hakkari, Turkey; and. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Erciyes University School of Medicine, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Altmetric analysis is a way of assessing the social impact of scientific articles. In this study, we aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited articles on the topic of the retina published in ophthalmology journals in traditional metrics and altmetrics. METHODS: The term "retina" was searched in the Web of Science database, and articles published in ophthalmology journals were filtered out. A total of 100 highly cited articles from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated for bibliographic data and altmetrics. First, descriptive statistics and then correlation analysis between traditional bibliographies and altmetrics were performed. RESULTS: According to the Web of Science search, the number of citations of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 809 to 137. The altmetric scores of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 0 to 1,340. There was no statistically significant correlation between the altmetric scores and the number of citations, but there was a statistically weak correlation between the altmetric scores and the average citations per year, H index, impact factor, and number of years since publication. CONCLUSION: Altmetrics is not sufficient to determine the scientific value of articles and can be affected by many factors, unlike traditional bibliometrics. However, being a good communicator in social media can support scientific productivity and create social impact.
PURPOSE: Altmetric analysis is a way of assessing the social impact of scientific articles. In this study, we aimed to analyze the 100 most-cited articles on the topic of the retina published in ophthalmology journals in traditional metrics and altmetrics. METHODS: The term "retina" was searched in the Web of Science database, and articles published in ophthalmology journals were filtered out. A total of 100 highly cited articles from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated for bibliographic data and altmetrics. First, descriptive statistics and then correlation analysis between traditional bibliographies and altmetrics were performed. RESULTS: According to the Web of Science search, the number of citations of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 809 to 137. The altmetric scores of the articles listed in the top 100 list ranged from 0 to 1,340. There was no statistically significant correlation between the altmetric scores and the number of citations, but there was a statistically weak correlation between the altmetric scores and the average citations per year, H index, impact factor, and number of years since publication. CONCLUSION: Altmetrics is not sufficient to determine the scientific value of articles and can be affected by many factors, unlike traditional bibliometrics. However, being a good communicator in social media can support scientific productivity and create social impact.