ArticleElectronic physician2016
Evaluation of Scientific Outputs of Kashan University of Medical Sciences in Scopus Citation Database based on Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley Scientometric Measures.
Article in Electronic physician, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Social Media to Increase the Impact of Health Research: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Predicting public health impact: Linking ResearchGate presence to Scopus performance through machine learning.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025Article
- Relationship of Altmetric Attention Score, Twitter Performance, and Dimensions Badge Value With Traditional Metrics in Top-Cited Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research Studies.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Altmetric analysis of contemporary dental literature.British dental journal · 2018Article
- Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- Altmetrics - A Collated Adjunct Beyond Citations for Scholarly Impact: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is essential to evaluate the impact of scientific publications through citation analysis in citation indexes. In addition, scientometric measures of social media also should be assessed. These measures include how many times the publications were read, viewed, and downloaded. The present study aimed to assess the scientific output of scholars at Kashan University of Medical Sciences by the end of March 2014 based on scientometric measures of Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley.
methodsA survey method was used to study the articles published in Scopus journals by scholars at Kashan University of Medical Sciences by the end of March 2014. The required data were collected from Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Also, the Spearman correlation was used between the number of views of articles in ResearchGate with citation number of the articles in Scopus and reading frequency of the articles in Mendeley with citation number in Scopus were examined using the Spearman correlation in SPSS 16.
resultsFive-hundred and thirty-three articles were indexed in the Scopus Citation Database by the end of March 2014. Collectively, those articles were cited 1,315 times. The articles were covered by ResearchGate (74%) more than Mendeley (44%). In addition, 98% of the articles indexed in ResearchGate and 92% of the articles indexed in Mendeley were viewed at least once. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the number of views of the articles in ResearchGate and Mendeley and the number of citations of the articles in Scopus.
conclusionCoverage and the number of visitors were higher in ResearchGate than in Mendeley. The increase in the number of views of articles in ResearchGate and Mendeley also increased the number of citations of the papers. Social networks, such as ResearchGate and Mendeley, also can be used as tools for the evaluation of academics and scholars based on the scientific research they have conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.