↓ Skip to main content

Social media, medicine and the modern journal club

Overview of attention for article published in International Review of Psychiatry, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
24 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Social media, medicine and the modern journal club
Published in
International Review of Psychiatry, April 2015
DOI 10.3109/09540261.2014.998991
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joel M. Topf, Swapnil Hiremath

Abstract

Medical media is changing along with the rest of the media landscape. One of the more interesting ways that medical media is evolving is the increased role of social media in medical media's creation, curation and distribution. Twitter, a microblogging site, has become a central hub for finding, vetting, and spreading this content among doctors. We have created a Twitter journal club for nephrology that primarily provides post-publication peer review of high impact nephrology articles, but additionally helps Twitter users build a network of engaged people with interests in academic nephrology. By following participants in the nephrology journal club, users are able to stock their personal learning network. In this essay we discuss the history of medical media, the role of Twitter in the current states of media and summarize our initial experience with a Twitter journal club.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Malaysia 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 79 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Other 13 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 44%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Computer Science 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 25 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,315,926
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from International Review of Psychiatry
#81
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,456
of 266,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Review of Psychiatry
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 266,558 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.