4.1 Article

Correlation between Twitter mentions and academic citations in sexual medicine journals

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPOTENCE RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 593-598

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-021-00457-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examined the relationship between Twitter mentions and traditional citations of articles in sexual medicine journals, finding that articles mentioned on Twitter had more citations in traditional citation systems.
Social media services, especially Twitter, are used as a commonly sharing tool in the scientific world. This widespread use of Twitter would be an effective method in spreading academic publications. So, we aimed to investigate the relationship between Twitter mentions and traditional citations of articles in sexual medicine journals in this study. We reviewed the articles published in seven journals of sexual medicine (2 years after the publication of the articles) between January 2018 and June 2018. In the first half of 2018, 410 articles were extracted. Of these, 352 (85.9%) were original articles, while 58 (14.1%) were review articles. The median number of citations of the articles mentioned at least once on Twitter was 7 (interquartile range: 0-111) for Google Scholar, whereas it was 0 (interquartile range: 0-63) for Scopus, respectively. It was 4 (interquartile range: 0-25) for Google Scholar and 0 (interquartile range: 0-7) for Scopus. The publications mentioned on Twitter were cited more than the non-mentioned publications in the traditional-based citation system (p < 0.001). A significant relationship between the citation numbers and tweet numbers was also observed (p < 0.001). Also, in the linear regression model, the tweet numbers (p < 0.001) and article types (p < 0.001) were found to be related to the Google Scholar citation numbers. In conclusion, using Twitter as a professional tool in academic life would allow information to be propagated and responded quickly, especially for sexual medicine journals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据