Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Impact of podcasting on novel and conventional measures of academic impact
  1. Gabriel Levin1,2,
  2. Ross Harrison3,
  3. Raanan Meyer4,5 and
  4. Pedro T Ramirez6
  1. 1Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
  2. 2Lady Davis Institute for Cancer Research, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  4. 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  5. 5Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
  6. 6Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gabriel Levin, Gynecologic Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel; levin.gaby{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is an alternative metric for estimating the impact of academic publications. We studied the association of using podcasting to highlight publications about gynecological cancer with AAS and citation scores.

Methods Articles that were featured in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) podcast series January 2019 to September 2022 were matched 1:1 to control articles by the journal in which the article was published, study topic and design, single/multicenter data, and year of publication. Podcast articles were compared with matched-controls by citation metrics and altmetric scores.

Results A total of 99 podcasted articles published in 16 journals were matched. Median AAS was significantly higher in the podcast group than the matched-control group (22 (14–42) vs 5 (1–17), p<0.001). In a multivariable regression analysis, podcasting was the only factor associated with a high AAS (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.6, 95% CI 3.8 to 19.7). In the podcast group, the median number of citations per year was higher than matched-control studies (5.5 (3.0–12.7) vs 4.5 (2.0–9.5), p=0.047). The only article characteristics that were independently associated with ≥12 citations per year were if the publication described a randomized controlled trial (aOR 4.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.6) or featured cervical carcinoma as the subject focus (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.5). Compared with all articles published in IJGC during the study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year (5 (2–10) vs 1 (0–2.5), p<0.001).

Conclusion When compared with matched-controls, podcasting an article is associated with a higher AAS but is not associated with generating a high (≥12) number of citations per year. When compared with all articles published in the same journal during the same study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year.

  • Miscellaneous

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Database was generated from publicly available resources.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Database was generated from publicly available resources.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @rossfh, @pedroramirezMD

  • Contributors GL: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, writing—review, editing, guarantor. RM: data curation, investigation, methodology, writing—review, guarantor. RH: writing—review, and editing. PR: writing—review, and editing, supervision, conceptualization, project administration.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.