Download PDF
Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2017; 30(04): 259-263
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604254
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Changing the Rules of the Game: How Do We Measure Success in Social Media?

Aisling M. Hogan
1   Department of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
,
Desmond C. Winter
1   Department of Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 September 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Ours will be the generation proud to say we shifted the sands of educational deserts by open access and proliferation, seeding of data sharing, and watering grassroots research in resource-compromised environments. Universal “social” media is defining features of modern professional life that provide powerful modes of knowledge acquisition/sharing to that end. Altmetric and other measurements stratify academic communications according to this alternate, online media presence (not academic penetrance). Are they meaningless, self-absorbed integers, or reliable yardsticks of scientific and educational prowess? Far beyond this trite, patronizing question from the minds of outdated, terrified technophobes, the real impact of “social” media is not narcissistic solipsism. Instant dissemination of contemporary surgical controversies on a truly global level drives improved (or at least reflective) health care for all. While a numerical assignment of value according to views, “likes,” impressions, or “retweets” may seem meaningless to cynical, established academics, the impetus for universal improvement is self-evident. Electronic data and opinion sharing may not balance the inequity between low- and high-income countries, but it keeps it in perspective. The best way to shift desert sands is to blow on them constantly.

Keywords

social media - Twitter - altmetrics - Publons
 

  • References

  • 1 Allport GW. “The historical background of social psychology”. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E. , eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 5. New York: McGraw Hill; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Fisher E, Youngs R, Hussain M, Fishman J. Service delivery: subspecialisation, emergencies, sharps injuries, personality traits and the ENT surgeon. J Laryngol Otol 2016; 130 (06) 511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Eysenbach G. 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 (04) e123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McCartney M. How much of a social media profile can doctors have?. BMJ 2012; 344: e440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ralston MR, O'Neill S, Wigmore SJ, Harrison EM. An exploration of the use of social media by surgical colleges. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (12) 1420-1427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cook-Deegan R. The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value. J Technol Transf 2007; 32: 133-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Merton R. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1979. . ISBN: 978-0226520926
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Chetlen AL, Dell CM, Solberg AO. , et al. Another time, another space: the evolution of the virtual journal club. Acad Radiol 2017; 24 (03) 273-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hamilton DP. Publishing by – and for? – the Numbers. Science 1990; 250: 1331-1332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Reames BN, Sheetz KH, Englesbe MJ, Waits SA. Evaluating the use of Twitter to enhance the educational experience of a medical school surgery clerkship. J Surg Educ 2016; 73 (01) 73-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Adams SA, Van Veghel D, Dekker L. Developing a research agenda on ethical issues related to using social media in healthcare. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2015; 24 (03) 293-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Watson R. What are altmetrics and why would anyone be interested?. Nurs Open 2016; 3 (03) 124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Pećina M, Niculescu M. Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with international orthopaedics. Int Orthop 2015; 39 (08) 1459-1464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wexner SD, Petrucci AM, Brady RR, Ennis-O'Connor M, Fitzgerald JE, Mayol J. Social media in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2017; 19 (02) 105-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Memon AR. ResearchGate and impact factor: a step further on predatory journals. J Pak Med Assoc 2017; 67 (01) 148-149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Davies N, Murphy DG, van Rij S, Woo HH, Lawrentschuk N. Online and social media presence of Australian and New Zealand urologists. BJU Int 2015; 116 (06) 984-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McDonald JJ, Bisset C, Coleman MG, Speake D, Brady RR. Contemporary use of social media by consultant colorectal surgeons. Colorectal Dis 2015; 17 (02) 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Park S, Oh HK, Park G. , et al. The source and credibility of colorectal cancer information on Twitter. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95 (07) e2775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 O'Neill S, Brady RR. Colorectal smartphone apps: opportunities and risks. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14 (09) e530-e534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar