↓ Skip to main content

Comparing alternative and traditional dissemination metrics in medical education

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Education, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 1,779)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
81 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing alternative and traditional dissemination metrics in medical education
Published in
Medical Education, July 2017
DOI 10.1111/medu.13359
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amath, Aysah, Ambacher, Kristin, Leddy, John J, Wood, Timothy J, Ramnanan, Christopher J, Aysah Amath, Kristin Ambacher, John J Leddy, Timothy J Wood, Christopher J Ramnanan

Abstract

The impact of academic scholarship has traditionally been measured using citation-based metrics. However, citations may not be the only measure of impact. In recent years, other platforms (e.g. Twitter) have provided new tools for promoting scholarship to both academic and non-academic audiences. Alternative metrics (altmetrics) can capture non-traditional dissemination data such as attention generated on social media platforms. The aims of this exploratory study were to characterise the relationships among altmetrics, access counts and citations in an international and pre-eminent medical education journal, and to clarify the roles of these metrics in assessing the impact of medical education academic scholarship. A database study was performed (September 2015) for all papers published in Medical Education in 2012 (n = 236) and 2013 (n = 246). Citation, altmetric and access (HTML views and PDF downloads) data were obtained from Scopus, the Altmetric Bookmarklet tool and the journal Medical Education, respectively. Pearson coefficients (r-values) between metrics of interest were then determined. Twitter and Mendeley (an academic bibliography tool) were the only altmetric-tracked platforms frequently (> 50%) utilised in the dissemination of articles. Altmetric scores (composite measures of all online attention) were driven by Twitter mentions. For short and full-length articles in 2012 and 2013, both access counts and citation counts were most strongly correlated with one another, as well as with Mendeley downloads. By comparison, Twitter metrics and altmetric scores demonstrated weak to moderate correlations with both access and citation counts. Whereas most altmetrics showed limited correlations with readership (access counts) and impact (citations), Mendeley downloads correlated strongly with both readership and impact indices for articles published in the journal Medical Education and may therefore have potential use that is complementary to that of citations in assessment of the impact of medical education scholarship.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Unspecified 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Other 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 27%
Unspecified 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 7 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#277,825
of 11,829,024 outputs
Outputs from Medical Education
#37
of 1,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,013
of 266,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Education
#3
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,829,024 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.