↓ Skip to main content

The Virtual Toxicology Journal Club: the Dissemination and Discussion of Noteworthy Manuscripts Using Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, June 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
The Virtual Toxicology Journal Club: the Dissemination and Discussion of Noteworthy Manuscripts Using Twitter
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13181-018-0670-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter R. Chai, Anne-Michelle Ruha, Kelly E. Wong, Derek L. Monette, Meghan B. Spyres, Jeff Lapoint, Howard Greller, Mark B. Mycyk

Abstract

Twitter-based chat groups (tweetchats) structured as virtual journal clubs have been demonstrated to provide value to learners. In order to promote topics in medical toxicology, we developed the #firesidetox tweetchat as a virtual journal club to discuss and disseminate topics in medical toxicology. A group of medical toxicologists from the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) Public Affairs Committee and editorial board of the Journal of Medical Toxicology (JMT) developed a quarterly one hour tweetchat featuring JMT manuscripts. We gathered basic twittergraphics and used a healthcare hashtag aggregator to measure the number of impressions, participants, and tweets per tweetchat session. A qualitative analysis of important themes from #firesidetox was also completed. During five tweetchats over 12 months, we attracted a mean of 23 participants generating a mean of 150 tweets per #firesidetox tweetchat. Tweets generated a mean of 329,200 impressions (unique user views): these impressions grew by 300% from the first through fifth #firesidetox. The majority of participants self-identified as medical toxicologists or physician learners. Although most were from the USA, participants also came from Australia, Poland, and Qatar. Most tweets centered on medical education and 7.9% tweets were learner-driven or questions asking for a medical toxicologist expert opinion. The #firesidetox attracted a diverse group of toxicologists, learners, and members of the public in a virtual journal club setting. The increasing number of impressions, participants, and tweets during #firesidetox demonstrates the tweetchat model to discuss pertinent toxicology topics is feasible and well received among its participants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 67%
Other 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 September 2018.
All research outputs
#799,725
of 12,270,130 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#80
of 428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,071
of 258,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,270,130 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 258,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.