ArticlePloS one2016
Bibliographic Analysis of Nature Based on Twitter and Facebook Altmetrics Data.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The dissemination of brain imaging guidelines and recommendations.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2022Article
- A critical review on altmetrics: can we measure the social impact factor?Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- If I tweet will you cite later? Follow-up on the effect of social media exposure on article downloads and citations.International journal of public health · 2020Observational
- Article
- #CardioOncology: Twitter chat as a mechanism for increasing awareness of heart health for cancer patients.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2020Article
- Identifying the princes base on Altmetrics: An awakening mechanism of sleeping beauties from the perspective of social media.PloS one · 2020Article
- Predicting Infectious Disease Using Deep Learning and Big Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Article
- Social impact in social media: A new method to evaluate the social impact of research.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper presents a bibliographic analysis of Nature articles based on altmetrics. We assess the concern degree of social users on the Nature articles through the coverage analysis of Twitter and Facebook by publication year and discipline. The social media impact of a Nature article is examined by evaluating the mention rates on Twitter and on Facebook. Moreover, the correlation between tweets and citations is analyzed by publication year, discipline and Twitter user type to explore factors affecting the correlation. The results show that Twitter users have a higher concern degree on Nature articles than Facebook users, and Nature articles have higher and faster-growing impact on Twitter than on Facebook. The results also show that tweets and citations are somewhat related, and they mostly measure different types of impact. In addition, the correlation between tweets and citations highly depends on publication year, discipline and Twitter user type.
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.