Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 8/2015

01-08-2015 | Original Paper

Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics

Authors: Marius M. Scarlat, Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Marko Pećina, Marius Niculescu

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 8/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This paper compares the traditional tools of calculation for a journal’s efficacy and visibility with the new tools that have arrived from the Internet, social media and search engines. The examples concern publications of orthopaedic surgery and in particular International Orthopaedics.

Methods and results

Until recently, the prestige of publications, authors or journals was evaluated by the number of citations using the traditional citation metrics, most commonly the impact factor. Over the last few years, scientific medical literature has developed exponentially. The Internet has dramatically changed the way of sharing and the speed of flow of medical information. New tools have allowed readers from all over the world to access information and record their experience. Web platforms such as Facebook® and Twitter® have allowed for inputs from the general public. Professional sites such as LinkedIn® and more specialised sites such as ResearchGate®, BioMed Central® and OrthoEvidence® have provided specific information on defined fields of science. Scientific and professional blogs provide free access quality information. Therefore, in this new era of advanced wireless technology and online medical communication, the prestige of a paper should also be evaluated by alternative metrics (altmetrics) that measure the visibility of the scientific information by collecting Internet citations, number of downloads, number of hits on the Internet, number of tweets and likes of scholarly articles by newspapers, blogs, social media and other sources of data.

Conclusions and discussion

This article provides insights into altmetrics and informs the reader about current tools for optimal visibility and citation of their work. It also includes useful information about the performance of International Orthopaedics and the bias between traditional publication metrics and the new alternatives.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP (2013) Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. Int Orthop 37(4):561–567PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP (2013) Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. Int Orthop 37(4):561–567PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111PubMedCrossRef Garfield E (1955) Citation indexes to science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 122:108–111PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hakkalamani S, Rawal A, Hennessy MS, Parkinson RW (2006) The impact factor of seven orthopaedic journals: factors influencing it. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:159–162PubMedCrossRef Hakkalamani S, Rawal A, Hennessy MS, Parkinson RW (2006) The impact factor of seven orthopaedic journals: factors influencing it. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:159–162PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kurmis AP (2003) Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2449–2454PubMed Kurmis AP (2003) Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:2449–2454PubMed
9.
go back to reference Siebelt M, Siebelt T, Pilot P, Bloem RM, Bhandari M, Poolman RW (2010) Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for impact factor and SCImago. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Siebelt M, Siebelt T, Pilot P, Bloem RM, Bhandari M, Poolman RW (2010) Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for impact factor and SCImago. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bergstrom CT, West JD (2008) Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor™ metrics. Neurology 71:1850–1851PubMedCrossRef Bergstrom CT, West JD (2008) Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor™ metrics. Neurology 71:1850–1851PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bosker BH, Verheyen CCPM (2006) The international rank order of publications in major clinical orthopaedic journals from 2000 to 2004. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:156–158PubMedCrossRef Bosker BH, Verheyen CCPM (2006) The international rank order of publications in major clinical orthopaedic journals from 2000 to 2004. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:156–158PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hemmingsson A, Mygind T, Skjennald A, Edgren J (2002) Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:767PubMedCrossRef Hemmingsson A, Mygind T, Skjennald A, Edgren J (2002) Manipulation of impact factors by editors of scientific journals. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:767PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med 3:e291PubMedCentralCrossRef The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med 3:e291PubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22:2623–2628PubMedCrossRef Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE (2008) Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. FASEB J 22:2623–2628PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA (2008) The Eigenfactor™ metrics. J Neurosci 28(45):11433–11434PubMedCrossRef Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA (2008) The Eigenfactor™ metrics. J Neurosci 28(45):11433–11434PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference de Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 30;149(3683):510–515 de Solla Price DJ (1965) Networks of scientific papers. Science 30;149(3683):510–515
25.
go back to reference Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V (2014) Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65:656–669CrossRef Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V (2014) Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65:656–669CrossRef
35.
Metadata
Title
Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics
Authors
Marius M. Scarlat
Andreas F. Mavrogenis
Marko Pećina
Marius Niculescu
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2766-y

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

International Orthopaedics 8/2015 Go to the issue