Advertisement

Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 460–466 | Cite as

Altmetrics for Medical Educators

  • Margaret S. ChisolmEmail author
In Depth Article: Commentary

The over-arching mission of medical educators is to teach physicians to practice medicine in a way that will “benefit the sick” and “keep them [‘the sick’] from harm and injustice” [1]. Medical educators fulfill this aim through (1) a clear understanding of the discipline and methods of teaching and (2) participation in the pre-clinical and clinical teaching of medical students, specialty and subspecialty training of residents and fellows, and/or continuing medical education of practicing physicians. Teaching is a generative activity, based on a shared trust that learners will “pay it forward” and further advance the profession of medicine [2].

Medical education scholars have additional aims, including the development, evaluation, and dissemination of novel and impactful curricula. For these innovations, medical educators deserve, and often desire, institutional recognition and reward in that “coin of the academic realm”—promotion and tenure. But, how does one ultimately evaluate the...

Keywords

Medical Educator Public Engagement Social Media Platform Academic Product Academic Advancement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Paul R. McHugh for his invaluable comments and suggestions on the review of an earlier draft of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The author adhered to scientific and ethical authorship research standards.

Disclosures

The author is a co-editor-in-chief of International Review of Psychiatry for which she receives financial compensation from Taylor and Francis Publishing. She also receives royalties for book sales from Taylor and Francis Publishing and the Johns Hopkins University Press. Otherwise, she has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kass LR, editor. Being human: core readings in the humanities. 1st ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McHugh PR, Slavney PR. The education of psychiatrists. In: Gelder MG, Lopez Ibor JJ, Andreasen NC, editors. New Oxford textbook of psychiatry. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 41–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morahan PS, Fleetwood J. The double helix of activity and scholarship: building a medical education career with limited resources. Med Educ. 2008;42(1):34–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simpson D, Fincher RM, Hafler JP, Irby DM, Richards BF, Rosenfeld GC, et al. Advancing educators and education by defining the components and evidence associated with educational scholarship. Med Educ. 2007;41(10):1002–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nutter DO, Bond JS, Coller BS, D’Alessandri RM, Gewertz BL, Nora LM, et al. Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75(2):199–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauer KE, Papadakis MA. Assessment of the contributions of clinician educators. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):5–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McHugh PR. A “letter of experience” about faculty promotion in medical schools. Acad Med. 1994;69(11):877–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Johns Hopkins Faculty Gold Book. 2005. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/faculty/_downloads/2013_gold_book.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  9. 9.
    Stanford University School of Medicine. Faculty Handbook. 2016. Available at: https://med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/administrators/handbook/chapt3/chapt3-2.html. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  10. 10.
    Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Criteria for Appointment and Promotion. 2008. Available at: http://facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/promotions.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  11. 11.
    Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine. New Criteria for Promotion and Appointment at HMS/HSDM. 2008. Available at: http://facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/index.php. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  12. 12.
    Stanford University School of Medicine. Guides to Reappointment and Promotion. 2016. Available at: http://med.stanford.edu/academicaffairs/professoriate/reappointment/guides.html. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  13. 13.
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Overview of academic promotions at Johns Hopkins—a one track system. 2008. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/faculty/appc/guide/overview.html. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  14. 14.
    Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006;295(1):90–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garfield E. Journal impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ. 1999;161(8):979–80.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomson Reuters. Journal Citation Reports. 2016. Available at: http://ipscience.thomsonreuters.com/product/journal-citation-reports/?utm_source=false&utm_medium=false&utm_campaign=false. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  17. 17.
    Rossner M, Van Epps H, Hill E. Show me the data. J Cell Biol. 2007;179(6):1091–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falagas ME, Alexiou VG. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2008;56(4):223–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monastersky R. The number that’s devouring science. Chron High Educ. 2005;52(8):A12–3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wilhite AW, Fong EA. Scientific publications. Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science. 2012;335(6068):542–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thombs BD, Levis AW, Razykov I, Syamchandra A, Leentjens AF, Levenson JL, et al. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78(1):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ioannidis JP. A generalized view of self-citation: direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78(1):7–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neylon C, Wu S. Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(11):e1000242.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lewison G. From biomedical research to health improvement. Scientometrics. 2002;54(2):179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trueger NS, Thoma B, Hsu CH, Sullivan D, Peters L, Lin M. The Altmetric Score: a new measure for article-level dissemination and impact. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;66(5):549–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fenner M. What can article-level metrics do for you? PLoS Biol. 2013;11(10):e1001687.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Med. 2006;3(6):e291.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith R. Measuring the social impact of research. BMJ. 2001;323(7312):528.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(2):217–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. Altmetrics: a manifesto. Altmetrics website. 2011. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/. Accessed 7 Jan 2016.
  31. 31.
    Campbell P. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics Sci Environ Polit. 2008;8(1):5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cantrill S. Imperfect Impact. 2016. Available at: https://stuartcantrill.com/2016/01/23/imperfect-impact/. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  33. 33.
    Oransky I. Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers. 2015. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  34. 34.
    Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(46):16569–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lane J. Let’s make science metrics more scientific. Nature. 2010;464(7288):488–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E. Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2847–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    U.S. National Library of Medicine. Number of Authors per MEDLINE®/PubMed® Citation. 2016. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html. Accessed 24 June 2016.
  38. 38.
    Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Rep. 2009;10(1):2–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hsu J, Huang D. Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics. 2011;86(2):317–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Batista PD, Campiteli MG, Kinouchi O. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? Scientometrics. 2006;68(1).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haustein S, Costas R, Lariviere V. PMC4363625; Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0120495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Doja A, Eady K, Horsley T, Bould MD, Victor JC, Sampson M. The h-index in medical education: an analysis of medical education journal editorial boards. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:251. doi: 10.1186/s12909-014-0251-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carpenter CR, Cone DC, Sarli CC. Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(10):1160–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Altmetric. Discover the attention surrounding your research. 2016. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com/. Accessed 29 June 2016.
  45. 45.
    Altmetric. The donut and Altmetric Attention Score. 2016. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/the-donut-and-score/. Accessed 29 June 2016.
  46. 46.
    Rousseau R, Ye F. A multi-metric approach for research evaluation. Chin Sci Bull. 2013;58:3288–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hawkins CM, Hillman BJ, Carlos RC, Rawson JV, Haines R, Duszak RJ. The impact of social media on readership of a peer-reviewed medical journal. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11:1038–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Desai T, Shariff A, Shariff A, Kats M, Fang X, Christiano C, et al. PMC3390326; Tweeting the meeting: an in-depth analysis of Twitter activity at Kidney Week 2011. PLoS One 2012;7:e40253.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jalali A, Sherbino J, Frank J, Sutherland S. Social media and medical education: exploring the potential of Twitter as a learning tool. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27:140–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McKendrick DR, Cumming GP, Lee AJ. PMC3799570; Increased use of Twitter at a medical conference: a report and a review of the educational opportunities. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e176.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Prober CG, Khan S. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1407–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    AAMCtoday. AAMC Annual Meeting 2012 highlight: innovation arc—new approaches by Salman Khan. 2012. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjVV4z6KkfE. Accessed 29 June 2016.
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    WoltersKluwer. Medical education reimagined: a call to action. 2016. Available at: https://wolterskluwer.altmetric.com/details/1710704. 29 June.
  55. 55.
    Thelwall M, Haustein S, Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR. PMC3665624; Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One 2013;8:e64841.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shema H, Bar-Ilan J, Thelwall M. Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics. J Assoc Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65(5):1018–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J. PMC3486871; How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 2012;7:e47523.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Eysenbach G. PMC3278109; Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e123.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ringelhan S, Wollersheim J, Welpe IM. I like, I cite? Do Facebook likes predict the impact of scientific work? PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134389.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Allen HG, Stanton TR, Di Pietro F, Moseley GL. PMC3714259; Social media release increases dissemination of original articles in the clinical pain sciences. PLoS One 2013;8:e68914.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tonia T, Van Oyen H, Berger A, Schindler C, Kunzli N. If I tweet will you cite? The effect of social media exposure of articles on downloads and citations. Int J Public Health. 2016.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V. Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65(4):656–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Priem J. Scholarship: beyond the paper. Nature. 2013;495(7442):437–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations