Advertisement

Immunology and social networks: an approach towards impact assessment

  • José Andrés Ordoñez-Gutiérrez
  • Juan Manuel Oviedo-Moreno
  • Daniela Patino-HernandezEmail author
  • Daniel Gerardo Fernández-Ávila
Observational Research

Abstract

Scientific journals have changed the mechanisms they use for distribution and dissemination of information. Different approaches towards determining impact have emerged and among these, metrics derived from activity on social media are an emerging trend. This article aims to assess whether a correlation exists between the traditional impact factor and activity on social media. We assessed journals categorized within the area of “immunology” on the SCImago Journal and Country Rank website. Variables reflecting traditional and alternative measures of impact were collected. Differences between journals with and without social networks were assessed using non-parametric Mann–Whitney U tests. Correlation was assessed through Spearman tests. 156 journals were analyzed, 17% had at least one social network. 48.2% of journals with social networks were classified within SJR’s quartile 1. An almost perfect correlation was found between the SJR and the number of followers on Twitter, this correlation remained statistically significant after adjusting for time since creation of the account [Spearman’s correlation (rs) = 0.83]. We propose the use of Twitter as a mechanism for dissemination of information by immunology journals, as well as other social networks for their potential to increase their audience, as well as the dissemination and impact of their publications.

Keywords

Immunology Social networks Impact factor Mass media Social media 

Notes

Author contributions

JAO and JMO: acquisition, and interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work, final approval of the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work; DGF: conception and design, and interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work, final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work; DP: acquisition, and interpretation of data for the work, design and drafting of the work, final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The ethics and research committee of our institution approved the study protocol.

Research involving human participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

296_2019_4459_MOESM1_ESM.png (150 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 1 Inclusions and exclusions

References

  1. 1.
    Melero R (2015) Altmetrics–a complement to conventional metrics. Biochem Medica 25:152–160.  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SCImago (n.d.) (2019) SJR—SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. http://www.scimagojr.com
  3. 3.
    Gonzalez-Pereira B, Guerrero-Bote V, Moya-Anegon F (2009) The SJR indicator: a new indicator of journals’ scientific prestige. ArXiv09124141 PhysGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3:e291.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altmetrics: a manifesto—altmetrics.org. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed 25 Jun 2019
  6. 6.
    Mozhdeh S, Sareh D (2019) Comparing the citations counts and altmetrics of the top medical science journals in scopus. Int J Inf Sci Manag 17:59–72Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Konkiel S Altmetrics: A 21st Century Solution to Determining Research Quality. In: Online Search. http://www.infotoday.com/OnlineSearcher/
  8. 8.
    Puschmann C (2014) (Micro)Blogging science? Notes on potentials and constraints of new forms of scholarly communication. In: Bartling S, Friesike S (eds) Opening science: the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 89–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox S, Duggan M (2013) Health Online 2013. In: Pew Res. Cent. https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
  10. 10.
    Bar-Ilan J (2018) The journal of altmetrics is launched—editorial. J Altmetrics 1:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM (2019) Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2019.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong K, Piraquive J, Levi JR (2018) Social media presence of otolaryngology journals: The past, present, and future. Laryngoscope 128:363–368.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26727 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramezani-Pakpour-Langeroudi F, Okhovati M, Talebian A (2018) Do highly cited clinicians get more citations when being present at social networking sites? J Educ Health Promot 7:18.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_69_17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA et al (2019) Comprehensive approach to open access publishing: platforms and tools. J Korean Med Sci 34:e184.  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e184 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pineda C, Pérez-Neri I, Sandoval H (2019) Challenges for social media editors in rheumatology journals: an outlook. Clin Rheumatol 38:1785–1789.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04586-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choo EK, Ranney ML, Chan TM et al (2015) Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: a guide for skeptics and novices. Med Teach 37:411–416.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee J-SM (2019) How to use Twitter to further your research career. Nature.  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00535-w CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Kelly F, Nason GJ, Manecksha RP et al (2017) The effect of social media (#SoMe) on journal impact factor and parental awareness in paediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 13:513.e1–513.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelly BS, Redmond CE, Nason GJ et al (2016) The use of twitter by radiology journals: an analysis of twitter activity and impact factor. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 13:1391–1396.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.06.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chang J, Desai N, Gosain A (2019) Correlation between altmetric score and citations in pediatric surgery core journals. J Surg Res 243:52–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Singh K, Duszak R (2017) Alternative metrics (“Altmetrics”) for assessing article impact in popular general radiology journals. Acad Radiol 24:891–897.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.11.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mašić I, Begić E, Donev DM et al (2016) Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croat Med J 57:527–529.  https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Semillero de Neurociencias y Envejecimiento, Ageing InstitutePontificia Universidad JaverianaBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Internal Medicine DepartmentHospital Universitario San IgnacioBogotáColombia
  3. 3.Rheumatology Unit, Internal Medicine DepartmentHospital Universitario San IgnacioBogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations