Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2021 Oct 15;23(10):e29809.
doi: 10.2196/29809.

The Association Between Professional Accounts on Social Networks Twitter and ResearchGate and the Number of Scientific Publications and Citations Among Anesthesia Researchers: Observational Study

Thomas Clavier  1 , Emilie Occhiali  1 , Zoé Demailly  1 , Vincent Compère  1 , Benoit Veber  1 , Jean Selim  1 , Emmanuel Besnier  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

The Association Between Professional Accounts on Social Networks Twitter and ResearchGate and the Number of Scientific Publications and Citations Among Anesthesia Researchers: Observational Study

Thomas Clavier et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Social networks are now essential tools for promoting research and researchers. However, there is no study investigating the link between presence or not on professional social networks and scientific publication or citation for a given researcher.

Objective: The objective of this study was to study the link between professional presence on social networks and scientific publications/citations among anesthesia researchers.

Methods: We included all the French full professors and associate professors of anesthesia. We analyzed their presence on the social networks Twitter (professional account with ≥1 tweet over the 6 previous months) and ResearchGate. We extracted their bibliometric parameters for the 2016-2020 period via the Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) database in the Science Citation Index-Expanded index.

Results: A total of 162 researchers were analyzed; 42 (25.9%) had an active Twitter account and 110 (67.9%) a ResearchGate account. There was no difference between associate professors and full professors regarding active presence on Twitter (8/23 [35%] vs. 34/139 [24.5%], respectively; P=.31) or ResearchGate (15/23 [65%] vs. 95/139 [68.3%], respectively; P=.81). Researchers with an active Twitter account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (45 [28-61] vs. 26 [12-41]; P<.001), a higher h-index (12 [8-16] vs. 8 [5-11]; P<.001), a higher number of citations per publication (12.54 [9.65-21.8] vs. 10.63 [5.67-16.10]; P=.01), and a higher number of citations (563 [321-896] vs. 263 [105-484]; P<.001). Researchers with a ResearchGate account (median [IQR]) had more scientific publications (33 [17-47] vs. 26 [9-43]; P=.03) and a higher h-index (9 [6-13] vs. 8 [3-11]; P=.03). There was no difference between researchers with a ResearchGate account and those without it concerning the number of citations per publication and overall number of citations. In multivariate analysis including sex, academic status, and presence on social networks, the presence on Twitter was associated with the number of publications (β=20.2; P<.001), the number of citations (β=494.5; P<.001), and the h-index (β=4.5; P<.001).

Conclusions: Among French anesthesia researchers, an active presence on Twitter is associated with higher scientific publication and citations.

Keywords: ResearchGate; Twitter; academic; anesthesia; bibliometrics; citation; publication; research output; researcher; social media; social network.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of scientific publications (A), h-index (B), number of citations per publication (C), and number of citing articles (D) over the period 2016-2020 among researchers with an active Twitter account. Data are presented as as median with interquartile range. *, P<.05; ****, P<.0001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number of scientific publications (A), h-index (B), number of citations per publication (C), and number of citing articles (D) over the period 2016-2020 among researchers with a ResearchGate (RG) account. Data are presented as as median with interquartile range. *, P<.05.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hawkins CM, Hunter M, Kolenic GE, Carlos RC. Social Media and Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal Readership: A Randomized Prospective Controlled Trial. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 May;14(5):596–602. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.12.024.S1546-1440(16)31447-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Buckarma EH, Thiels CA, Gas BL, Cabrera D, Bingener-Casey J, Farley DR. Influence of Social Media on the Dissemination of a Traditional Surgical Research Article. J Surg Educ. 2017;74(1):79–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.06.019.S1931-7204(16)30095-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boudry C, Bouchard A. [Role of academic social networks in disseminating the scientific production of researchers in biology/medicine: the example of ResearchGate] Med Sci (Paris) 2017;33(6-7):647–652. doi: 10.1051/medsci/20173306023. http://publications.edpsciences.org/10.1051/medsci/20173306023 medsci2017336-7p647 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clavier T, Besnier E, Blet A, Boisson M, Sigaut S, Frasca D, Abou Arab O, Compère Vincent, Buléon Clément, Fischer M. A communication strategy based on Twitter improves article citation rate and impact factor of medical journals. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2020 Dec;39(6):745–746. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.11.001.S2352-5568(20)30261-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haustein S, Costas R, Larivière Vincent. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495. https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 PONE-D-14-48905 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types