@Article{info:doi/10.2196/15643，作者=“Murray, Gregg and Hellen, Rebecca and Ralph, James and Ni Raghallaigh, Siona”，标题=“皮肤学期刊传统引文指标与替代指标的比较:内容与相关性分析研究”，期刊=“JMIR Dermatol”，年=“2020”，月=“Feb”，日=“12”，卷=“3”，号=“1”，页=“e15643”，关键词=“Dermatology”;altmetrics;影响因子;引用;背景:传统上，研究影响是通过引用数和影响因子(IF)来衡量的。长期以来，学术界严重依赖这种形式的公制系统来衡量出版物的影响。较高的引用次数被视为研究重要性的指标和出版期刊影响力的标志。最近，社交媒体和在线新闻来源已经成为传播研究的重要途径，导致另一种度量系统的出现，称为另类度量。目的:评估2017年所有皮肤病学期刊和发表文章的另类注意力评分(AAS)与传统科学影响指标(即期刊影响因子和文章被引次数)的相关性。方法:我们使用InCites期刊引文报告检索2017年可获得的皮肤病学期刊及其相关IFs。 We entered all 64 official dermatology journals into Altmetric Explorer, a Web-based platform that enables users to browse and report on all attention data for every piece of scholarly content for which Altmetric Explorer has found attention. Results: For the 64 dermatology journals, there was a moderate positive correlation between journal IF and journal AAS (rs=.513, P<.001). In 2017, 6323 articles were published in the 64 dermatology journals. Our data show that there was a weak positive correlation between the traditional article citation count and AAS (rs=.257, P<.001). Conclusions: Our data show a weak correlation between article citation count and AAS. Temporal factors may explain this weak association. Newer articles may receive increased online attention after publication, while it may take longer for scientific citation counts to accumulate. Stories that are at times deemed newsworthy and then disseminated across the media and social media platforms border on sensationalism and may not be truly academic in nature. The opposite can also be true. ", issn="2562-0959", doi="10.2196/15643", url="https://derma.www.mybigtv.com/2020/1/e15643", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/15643" }