Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis.
Authors: Ruano, Juan
Aguilar-Luque, Macarena
Gómez-Garcia, Francisco
Alcalde Mellado, Patricia
Gay-Mimbrera, Jesus
Carmona-Fernandez, Pedro J
Maestre-López, Beatriz
Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Luís
Hernández Romero, José Luís
González-Padilla, Marcelino
Vélez García-Nieto, Antonio
Isla-Tejera, Beatriz
metadata.dc.subject.mesh: Bibliometrics
Social Media
Issue Date: 29-Jan-2018
Abstract: Researchers are increasingly using on line social networks to promote their work. Some authors have suggested that measuring social media activity can predict the impact of a primary study (i.e., whether or not an article will be highly cited). However, the influence of variables such as scientific quality, research disclosures, and journal characteristics on systematic reviews and meta-analyses has not yet been assessed. The present study aims to describe the effect of complex interactions between bibliometric factors and social media activity on the impact of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016053181). Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Altmetrics, which consider Twitter, Facebook, and Google+ mention counts as well as Mendeley and SCOPUS readers, and corresponding article citation counts from Google Scholar were obtained for each article. Metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. One-hundred and sixty-four reviews with available altmetrics information were included in the final multifactorial analysis, which showed that social media and impact factor have less effect than Mendeley and SCOPUS readers on the number of cites that appear in Google Scholar. Although a journal's impact factor predicted the number of tweets (OR, 1.202; 95% CI, 1.087-1.049), the years of publication and the number of Mendeley readers predicted the number of citations in Google Scholar (OR, 1.033; 95% CI, 1.018-1.329). Finally, methodological quality was related neither with bibliometric influence nor social media activity for systematic reviews. In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of connectivity between scientific quality, social media activity, and article usage, thus predicting scientific success based on these variables may be inappropriate in the particular case of systematic reviews.
metadata.dc.identifier.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191124
Appears in Collections:Producción 2020

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
PMC5788350.pdf7,85 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons