








































This is an open access article under the terms of a license that permits non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.  
© 2023 The Authors. Société Internationale d'Urologie Journal, published by the Société Internationale d'Urologie, Canada.

Key Words Competing Interests Article Information

Social media, SoMe, UroSoMe,  
academic metrics, urology

None declared. Received on October 2, 2022 
Accepted on November 26, 2022 
This article has been peer reviewed.

Soc Int Urol J. 2023;4(2):88–95

DOI: 10.48083/DMPR4183

Social Media Engagement for Urology Journals  
— A Correlation Analysis of Traditional and  
Social Media Metrics

Wei Zheng So,1 Ho Yee Tiong,2 Vineet Gauhar,3 Daniele Castellani,4  
Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh5

1 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 2 Department of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore 3 Department of 
Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore 4 Urology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, 
Ancona, Italy 5 S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

Introduction The growing adoption of social media (SoMe) by the scientific community has cemented the role of 
SoMe in information dissemination and engagement of academic work. The objective of this study is to evaluate the 
relationship between traditional and alternative SoMe metrics of urology journals.

Methods Urology journals listed on the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) electronic portal were selected 
and data pertaining to traditional metrics were collected. Official SoMe platforms of eligible journals were identified 
and indicators of online activity were recorded. Correlations between traditional metrics (SJR, h-index, and Scopus 
CiteScore) and social metrics were performed via Spearman rank-order correlation.

Results Of 107 journals, 54.2% of journals had at least one form of SoMe presence. The median SJR (0.535 versus 
0.334, P = 0.005), h-index (34 versus 20, P = 0.001), and Scopus CiteScore (3.25 versus 2.20, P = 0.014) were significantly 
higher among journals with SoMe networks. All 3 traditional indicators demonstrated strong global correlations with 
various Twitter-based metrics (rs = 0.428 to 0.571). In particular, SoMe journals with more than 3000 citations in the 
previous 3 years also displayed very strong correlations between all 3 traditional metrics and alternative social metrics 
(rs = 0.714 to 0.821).

Conclusions Journals with SoMe presence had significantly higher traditional metric values (SJR, h-index, and 
CiteScore) compared to journals without SoMe presence. Strong, positive correlations between citation-based and 
alternative social metrics were also observed. Alternative social metrics may be harnessed as supplemental indicators 
of a journal’s scientific impact.

Introduction

Today’s currency of communication has largely turned digital in nature after the advent of social media (SoMe) 
heralded a paradigm shift in human interaction. SoMe, broadly defined as any internet-based web application that 
empowers real-time electronic communication between users, transcends geographical boundaries and enables 
instant dissemination of information across the online community. Within the realms of health care communication, 
SoMe has been said to enhance both intra- and inter-professional interactions, promote health literacy and education, 
establish peer support, and design a constructive space for healthy discourse about healthcare practices[1].

88 SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023 SIUJ.ORG

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2303-0750
mailto:soweizhengs%40gmail.com?subject=SIUJ
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0077-7904
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3740-7141
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-2342
http://SIUJ.org


Traditionally, the impact of surgical research has 
always been quantitatively measured with bibliomet-
rics. It takes into consideration numbers and indices that 
are objectively easier to compare as opposed to qual-
itative inputs[2]. Examples include impact factor (IF)
[3] based on the Science Citation Index, the SCImago 
Journal Ranking Indicator (SJR)[4], h-index[5], and 
Scopus CiteScore[6,7]. Unfortunately, these parameters 
are purely academic and fail to consider the social influ-
ence of articles across a wider audience. In addition, the 
accruement of article citations requires time, purporting 
a “lag time” before a journal’s impact may be accurately 
assessed[8,9]. In attempts to circumvent these limita-
tions, newer counterparts such as Alternative Metrics 
(also known as Altmetrics)[10] have been established to 
specifically track the online presence of a research article 
across various SoMe platforms, culminating in an algo-
rithmically derived figure that reflects the overall weight 
of article mentions online.

A prior study evaluated whether article Altmetric 
scores correlated with urological journal IF and citation 
counts in 2013 and 2016 respectively, concluding weak 
correlations between newer and traditional metrics[11]. 
Since then, SoMe adoption within urology has accel-
erated by leaps and bounds, with over 53% of jour-
nals harboring some form of online presence. Of the 4 
major social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, 
Instagram, YouTube), it is worth noting that Twitter 
has drawn the greatest extent of attention and partici-
pation of the scientific community, establishing itself as 
the most active platform for academic discourse[12,13]. 
Our study aims to analyze the use of SoMe by urolog-
ical journals, hypothesizing that there is a significant 
correlation between traditional journal (SJR, h-index, 
and Scopus CiteScore) and SoMe platform metrics while 
placing a relatively greater emphasis on Twitter-based 
indicators.

Methods
Data collection
We included all urolog y journals indexed in the 
elect ronic por ta l SCImago Journa l & Cou nt r y 
R a n k ( ht t ps://w w w.sci magojr.com /jou r na l ra n k .
php?area=2700&categor y=2748)[4]. SCImago is a 
research group affiliated with Consejo Superior de 
Investigaciones Científicas [CSIC], of the universities 
from Granada, Extremadura, Carlos III (Madrid), and 

Abbreviations 
IP impact factor
SJR SCImago Journal Ranking Indicator
SoMe social media

Alcala de Henares. The rankings consider region or 
country of origin, subject area (27 major thematic areas), 
and subject category (309 specific subject categories). 
Data are retrieved from over 34 100 titles from more 
than 5000 international publishers across 239 countries. 
The SJR score of each journal is unique compared to IF, 
in that it is independent of self-citations, includes non-
citable documents such as commentaries and letters 
to the editor as part of calculating the total number of 
documents published by a journal, and has a relatively 
larger geographic and language coverage[14]. Moreover, 
it utilizes the reputable PageRank algorithm, which is 
famously incorporated by Google search engine into its 
web search[15]. SJR uses it for the assessment of citation 
quality. The rankings are publicly retrievable alongside 
other specified indicators for each journal. Data from 
all journals filtered under the subset “medicine” and 
search term “urology” were collected. The following 
variables were recorded from the SCImago database—
SJR index, h-index, latest impact factor (2021), Scopus 
CiteScore, total number of articles published in the 
previous 3 years, total citations in the previous 3 years, 
quartile, open access rights, and region of publication 
(Europe, North America, Asia, Latin America, Africa, 
and others). Referencing the same list, SoMe presence 
of journals on any of the 4 main social networking 
platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube) 
was evaluated. The following indicators were obtained: 
date of social media account creation; total number of 
followers; number of tweets (Twitter); number of videos, 
subscribers, and views (YouTube); and number of 
publications (Instagram). The results were time adjusted 
by considering the duration of account presence on 
social media to accurately determine audience growth. 
To ensure that the SoMe accounts sourced were valid and 
official, only links provided on the official page of the 
journal were used. SoMe accounts of journal publishing 
groups were excluded from analysis. Data procurement 
and collection were performed on September 14, 2022.

Statistical analysis
The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine normality 
of data points. Parametric continuous variables 
were presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). 
Nonparametric continuous variables were reported as 
median and range. Chi-square tests (or Fisher exact test, 
wherever applicable) were used to compare categorical 
variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to 
compare nonparametric continuous variables.

Relationships between traditional academic (SJR, 
h-index, and CiteScore) and alternative SoMe metrics 
were investigated using Spearman rank-order correla-
tion coefficient, using the coefficient of determina-
tion (rs) as a measure of the goodness of fit. Subgroup 
correlations were performed wherever appropriate. 

89SIUJ.ORG SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023

Social Media Engagement for Urology Journals — A Correlation Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Metrics

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=2700&category=2748
https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=2700&category=2748
http://SIUJ.org


The strength of bivariate correlations was interpreted 
according to ranges defined by Dancey and Reidy[16]: 
rs ≥ 0.70 (very strong), rs 0.40 to 0.69 (strong), rs 0.30 
to 0.39 (moderate), rs 0.20 to 0.29 (weak), rs 0.01 to 0.19 
(no or negligible). Statistical significance in this study 
was determined as P < 0.05. All reported P-values were 
2-sided, and analyses were performed with SPSS Version 
26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Journal characteristics
A total of 107 urology journals sourced from the 
SCImago Journal & Country Rank portal were included 
for analysis (Supplementary Table S1). Fifty-eight 
journals (54.2%) had social media presence on at least  
1 major social networking site. When traditional 
academic metrics were compared across journals 
with and without SoMe networks, the median SJR 
(0.535 versus 0.334, P = 0.005), h-index (34 versus 20, 

P  =  0.001), and Scopus CiteScore (3.25 versus 2.20, 
P = 0.014) were significantly higher among journals with 
online presence (Table 1). Across quartiles, there were 
significantly more quartile-1 journals within the social 
media group compared with those without social media 
(36.2% versus 12.2%, P = 0.002). A significantly higher 
proportion of journals with SoMe presence had more 
than 3000 citations over the previous 3 years compared 
to journals without social networks (12.1% versus 0%, 
P = 0.021). Across both groups, most journal publishers 
were based in Europe and North America. Otherwise, 
there were no other notable differences in baseline 
characteristics, such as the number of open access 
journals.

Table 2 depicts the baseline information of journals 
with social media presence. Fifty-four of 58 journals had 
a social media account on Twitter; 59.3% of them had 

TABLE 1.

Traditional academic metrics of journals

Journals with social media 
networks 

Journals without social 
media networks P-value

(n = 58) (n = 49)

SJR (median, IQR) 0.535 (0.255–0.859) 0.334 (0.127–0.610) 0.005

h-index (median, IQR) 34 (18–75.3) 20 (9–33.5) 0.001

Scopus CiteScore (median, IQR) 3.25 (1.35–5.43) 2.20 (0.3–4.30) 0.014

Quartile, n (%) 0.002

Q1 21 (36.2) 6 (12.2)

Q2 12 (20.7) 15 (30.6)

Q3 17 (29.3) 9 (18.4)

Q4 8 (13.8) 19 (38.8)

Open access, n (%) 26 (44.8) 22 (44.9) > 0.05

Region of publication 0.196

Europe 30 (51.7) 23 (46.9)

North America 18 (31) 12 (24.5)

Asia 4 (6.9) 10 (20.4)

Latin America 2 (3.4) 0 (0)

Africa 0 (0) 1 (2)

Others 4 (6.9) 3 (6.1)

Number of publications in the previous 3 years, n (%) 0.101

< 250 26 (44.8) 32 (65.3)

250–500 16 (27.6) 10 (20.4)

> 500 16 (27.6) 7 (14.3)

Number of citations in the previous 3 years, n (%) 0.021

< 1000 40 (69) 42 (85.7)

1000–3000 11 (19) 7 (14.3)

> 3000 7 (12.1) 0 (0)

90 SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023 SIUJ.ORG

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

http://SIUJ.org
http://SIUJ.org


at least 1000 followers, accruing a median count of 295 
followers per year. The median number of tweets gener-
ated across these journals was 797 tweets. Twenty-six of 
58 journals had a presence on Facebook, 7 of 58 journals 
were present on YouTube, and 9 of 58 journals had an 
Instagram account. To encompass a holistic correla-
tion between metrics, our analysis focused mainly on 
Twitter- and Facebook-derived data. This is in view of 
the disproportionately low presence of journals on the 
remainder of the SoMe platforms.

Journals with SoMe presence and a publisher base 
in Europe observed significantly stronger correlations 
between their traditional and social metrics (Table 3). 
The SJR indicator demonstrated strong global correla-
tions with various alternative social metrics, such 

as number of Twitter followers (rs  =  0.538), number 
of Twitter followers per year (rs  =  0.503), number of 
tweets (rs = 0.520), and number of Facebook followers 
(rs = 0.438). In particular, quartile-1 journals (rs = 0.702) 
and journals with more than 3000 citations (rs = 0.713) 
demonstrated very strong correlations between SJR and 
number of Twitter followers.

Likewise, h-index correlated strongly with various 
social media metrics such as the number of Twitter 
followers (rs = 0.571), number of Twitter followers per 
year (rs = 0.570), and number of tweets (rs = 0.506). Jour-
nals with more than 500 publications in the previous 3 
years displayed relatively strong correlations between 
h-index and number of Twitter followers (rs  =  0.625), 
number of Twitter followers per year (rs  =  0.518), and 
number of tweets (rs = 0.749). Journals with more than 
3000 citations in the previous 3 years also displayed 
very strong correlations between h-index and number 
of Twitter followers (rs  =  0.821) / number of tweets 
(rs = 0.893).

CiteScore metrics also correlated strongly with vari-
ous alternative social metrics, such as number of Twit-
ter followers (rs  =  0.487), number of Twitter followers 
per year (rs = 0.428), number of tweets (rs = 0.474), and 
number of Facebook followers (rs  =  0.405). Journals 
with more than 500 publications in the previous 3 years 
displayed relatively strong correlations between Cite-
Score and number of Twitter followers (rs = 0.578), while 
journals with more than 3000 citations in the previ-
ous 3 years displayed very strong correlations between 
CiteScore and number of Twitter followers (rs = 0.714) / 
number of tweets (rs = 0.750).

Discussion
SoMe has revolutionized the way we communicate on 
a day-to-day basis and interact both professionally 
and academically. The use of SoMe by the urology 
community has increased drastically during the past 
few years[17]. In the present study, we evaluated the 
correlation between traditional index metrics and SoMe 
platforms among SCImago-indexed urology journals. 
Interestingly, we not only uncovered the prominence 
of SoMe usage by urological journals but also provided 
updated insights regarding the utility of SoMe in 
research dissemination. In addition, we demonstrated 
that journals with SoMe presence had significantly 
higher traditional metric values (SJR, h-index, and 
CiteScore) compared to journals without SoMe presence. 
Strong, positive correlations between citation-based and 
alternative social metrics were also observed.

The omnipresent World Wide Web has not only 
reshaped how information is shared across the internet 
but also paved a new way for communication by intro-
ducing social networking platforms whose hallmarks 

TABLE 2.

Journal activity on social media

Twitter 

Journals on Twitter, n (%) 54 (50)

Number of tweets (median, IQR) 797.5 (145.75–1605.75)

Number of followers, n (%)

< 1000 22 (40.7)

1000–3000 17 (31.5)

> 3000 15 (27.8)

Number of followers/year 
(median, IQR)

295.55 (122.35–699.66)

Facebook

Journals on Facebook, n (%) 26 (24.3)

Number of followers, n (%)

< 1000 12 (46.2)

1000–3000 8 (30.8)

> 3000 6 (23.1)

Number of followers/year 
(median, IQR) 

1094 (271.25–2946)

YouTube

Journals on YouTube, n (%) 7 (6.5)

Number of views (median, IQR) 285,103 (2124–4,560,263)

Number of subscribers/year 
(median, IQR)

347.27 (3.4–946.15)

Instagram

Journals on Instagram, n (%) 9 (8.4)

Number of posts (median, IQR) 215 (77.5–346

Number of followers/year 
(median, IQR)

153 (76.94–506.96)

91SIUJ.ORG SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023

Social Media Engagement for Urology Journals — A Correlation Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Metrics

http://SIUJ.org


TABLE 3. 

Correlation between traditional and alternative social media metrics

SJR
Number of 

followers (Twitter)
Number of followers/

year (Twitter)
Number of 

tweets 
Number of followers 

(Facebook)

Overall correlation 0.538* 0.503* 0.520* 0.438* 

Q1 (n = 27) 0.702* 0.360 0.413 0.267

Region

Europe 0.613* 0.621* 0.539* 0.349 

North America 0.527* 0.427 0.467 0.306

Number of publications in the previous 3 years 

< 250 0.287 0.280 0.263 0.264

> 500 0.624* 0.394 0.479 0.571 

Number of citations in the previous 3 years, n (%)

< 1000 0.058 0.063 0.133 0.087

> 3000 0.714* 0.393 0.750 0.400

h-index
Number of 

followers (Twitter)
Number of followers/

year (Twitter)
Number of 

tweets 
Number of followers 

(Facebook)

Overall correlation 0.571* 0.570* 0.506* 0.495* 

Q1 (n = 27) 0.431 0.420 0.445* 0.498

Region

Europe 0.517* 0.557* 0.494* 0.410

North America 0.488* 0.495* 0.437 -0.108 

Number of publications in the previous 3 years 

< 250 0.407 0.405 0.082 0.174

> 500 0.625* 0.518* 0.749* 0.167

Number of citations in the previous 3 years, n (%)

< 1000 0.290 0.279 0.159 0.098

> 3000 0.821* 0.536 0.893* -0.400

CiteScore
Number of 

followers (Twitter)
Number of followers/

year (Twitter)
Number of 

tweets 
Number of followers 

(Facebook)

Overall correlation 0.487* 0.428* 0.474* 0.405*

Q1 (n = 27) 0.603* 0.347 0.451* 0.249

Region

Europe 0.559* 0.557* 0.516* 0.169

North America 0.526* 0.449 0.507* 0.319

Number of publications in the previous 3 years 

< 250 0.226 0.197 0.208 0.273

> 500 0.578* 0.474 0.468 0.571

Number of citations in the previous 3 years, n (%)

< 1000 0.018 0.036 0.109 0.012

> 3000 0.714* 0.393 0.750* 0.400

*Statistical significance attained at P < 0.05.

92 SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023 SIUJ.ORG

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

http://SIUJ.org


are of the ability to provide a common yet integrated 
space where users can interact with the community 
and like-minded members of the society on personal 
and professional levels. It was found that 74% of urolo-
gists engage in some form of SoMe presence[18] and this 
has paved the way for consistent scientific discussion. 
This finding is potentiated by the highly accessible and 
portable nature of SoMe, where convenience and time 
efficacy are optimized. Instantaneous procurement of 
information is made possible in the context of a urolo-
gist’s hectic schedule, enabling bite-sized but relevant 
pieces of research to be tailored to an individual’s social 
feed. SoMe has provided an equally constructive plat-
form akin to that of a physical journal club, but with 
all the virtual benefits—maintaining the same extent 
of productive discourse about a research topic through 
mentions and tweets[19]. In the same vein, the incep-
tion of #UroSoMe in December 2018, a Twitter hashtag 
specific to urology, as well as a dedicated account (@so_
uro), has revolutionized the social landscape of urology 
as never before[17,20]. Initially set up to promote public 
awareness of urological conditions and professional 
academic discussions, the community has culminated 
in international, multicenter collaborations on research 
work[21,22]. With official guidelines already in place to 
regulate SoMe use by professionals[23], much is eagerly 
awaited by the #UroSoMe working group to further 
expand its outreach.

The potential of SoMe has also been tapped into by 
other fields in medicine, such as surgery[12], radiol-
ogy[24], otolaryngology[25], pulmonology[26], and 
pediatric surgery[27]. The recurring theme in these 
studies that similarly evaluated the utility of alterna-
tive social metrics is that SoMe indicators should be 
harnessed as adjuncts alongside traditional metrics to 
holistically evaluate academic impact. A randomized 
study by Luc et al.[28] evaluated the impact of tweets on 
thoracic surgery research articles and found that arti-
cles that were tweeted on attained significantly greater 
increase in citation scores at 1 year (tweeted +3.1 ± 2.4 
versus non-tweeted +0.7 ± 1.3, P < 0.001). Moreover, 
exposure to a larger number of Twitter followers was 
determined to be an independent predictor of citation 
count. All these collectively contribute to the plausibility 
of SoMe platforms as reliable media of scholarly activ-
ity, allowing journals to build a wider academic audience 
and be exposed to peer recognition as well.

Twitter has evolved as a primary player for infor-
mation dissemination in research. It prides itself as 
being a platform that allows for information to be 
shared in multiple modes: text, photographs, videos, 
and weblinks, and in the most compact form possible  
(≤ 140 characters). Such content flexibility has given rise 
to creative outlets for circulating research findings and 
achieving outreach. Infographics and videographics 

are revolutionary new ways in which information is 
shared on SoMe platforms such as Twitter and have 
been shown not only to attract attention to the topic they 
advocate but also to display an artistic flair. This capti-
vates readership and encourages interactive discussion 
about the topic[29,30]. On the other hand, the develop-
ment of conference-specific hashtags (#SIU22, EAU22, 
#AUA22, #BAUS22) has also served as a surrogate 
marker of outreach beyond physical means, augment-
ing the conference experience for a wider audience. For 
instance, the American Urological Association’s Annual 
Meeting in 2013 garnered more than 8.6 million impres-
sions and 4663 tweets in total across the peri-conference 
period[31], enhancing publicity for the subsequent year’s 
meeting.

Our study is not devoid of limitations. We excluded 
correlations with impact factors derived from Journal 
Citation Reports, as IF has certain inherent disadvan-
tages that preclude holistic representation of all jour-
nals[32]. More robust counterpart metrics such as the 
SJR indicator consider self-citation articles and include 
a wider geographical and language scope. Despite estab-
lishing a strong association between traditional and 
alternative social metrics, causality cannot be identi-
fied—the impact of research dissemination on SoMe 
remains controversial, with a mixed bag of opinions 
regarding its academic utility. A relevant caveat of note 
here is the need to distinguish between journals that are 
highly cited versus those that are highly active on SoMe. 
Although there is a strong positive correlation between 
the 2, it is imperative for academics to discern the differ-
ence between these 2 groups, for they are not directly 
interchangeable. A journal that receives significant 
SoMe growth may not necessarily translate to direct 
academic impact—SoMe outreach is primarily aimed at 
instantaneous, bite-sized, and palatable dissemination of 
article content. While it does increase the viewership of 
said journal article, it does not always encourage greater 
citation counts. This can be for reasons as simple as only 
garnering a minority of their target academic audience 
interested in the same topic. For instance, Hayon et al. 
concluded that citation counts are positively associated 
with the number of citations an article accrues only after 
3 years in publication[33]. In fact, a novel “Twitter impact 
factor” derived from SoMe metrics of urology journals 
was also trialled to determine its correlation with the 
traditional impact factor[34]. However, on the other 
hand, established alternative metrics such as the Altmet-
ric score have failed to demonstrate strong correlations 
with article citation counts within urological liter-
ature[11]. Other confounding factors such as finan-
cial capacity can determine how dedicated the parent 
publisher of the journal is in promoting SoMe engage-
ment. Journals with respectable traditional metrics may 
have more resources to begin with for publicity, which 

93SIUJ.ORG SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023

Social Media Engagement for Urology Journals — A Correlation Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Metrics

http://SIUJ.org


can substantially affect the extent of outreach compared 
to low-impact journals. Future prospective studies are 
necessary to elucidate any underlying causal relation-
ships between these variables.

Conclusions
Our study clearly demonstrates that journals with social 
media presence have significantly higher values of 
traditional metrics than those without, and these metrics 
(SJR, h-index, and Scopus CiteScore) correlate well with 
journal activity on SoMe platforms such as Twitter. 
Given the immediacy of SoMe metrics, indicators of 

SoMe presence should be actively considered as an 
adjunct to traditional measurements of scientific impact, 
generating information on both short- and long-term 
journal outreach and publicity[35].

Author Contributions
All named authors have contributed significantly to the 
conceptualization, conduct, and writing of the paper. 
All authors have seen and approved the final version 
of the manuscript being submitted. All authors have 
fulfilled the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 
requirements for authorship.

References

1. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving 
C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, 
benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. 
J Med Internet Res.2013;15(4):e85. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1933. PMID: 
23615206; PMCID: PMC3636326.

2. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics in a changing research 
landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research 
quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. 
EMBO Rep.2014;15(12):1228–1232. doi: 10.15252/embr.201439608. 
PMID: 25389037; PMCID: PMC4264924.

3. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. 
JAMA.2006;295(1):90 –93. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90. PMID: 
16391221.

4. SCImago, (n.d.). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. 
Retrieved September 11, 2022, from http://www.scimagojr.com.

5. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research 
output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2005;102(46):16569–16572. doi: 
10.1073/pnas.0507655102. PMID: 16275915; PMCID: PMC1283832.

6. James C, Colledge L, Meester W, Azoulay N, Plume A. CiteScore 
metrics: creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index. 
2018. arXiv preprint arXiv:181206871 [cs.DL]. doi: 10.4 8550/
arXiv.1812.06871.

7. Baker DW. Introducing CiteScore, our journal’s preferred citation 
index: moving beyond the impact factor. Jt Comm J Qual Patient 
Saf.2020;46(6):309 –310. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.03.005. PMID: 
32402761.

8. Wang J. Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. 
Scientometrics.2013;94(3):851–872. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9.

9. Duszak R Jr. The impact factory. Acad Radiol.2016;23(6):659–660. doi: 
10.1016/j.acra.2016.01.011. PMID: 26971042.

10. Altmetrics. Altmetric. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com. 
Accessed February 3, 2023.

11. Nocera AP, Boyd C J, Boudreau H, Hakim O, Rais-Bahrami S. 
Examining the correlation between Altmetric score and citations 
in the urology literature. Urology.2019;134:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.
urology.2019.09.014. PMID: 31560915.

12. Mobarak S, Stott MC, Lee WJ, Davé MS, Tarazi M, Macutkiewicz C. 
The importance of social media to the academic surgical literature: 
relationship between Twitter activity and readership metrics. 
Surgery.2021;170(3):650–656. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2021.01.003. PMID: 
33612291.

13. Grossman R, Sgarbura O, Hallet J, Søreide K. Social media in surgery: 
evolving role in research communication and beyond. Langenbecks 
Arch Surg.2021;406(3):505–520. doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02135-7. 
PMID: 33640992; PMCID: PMC7914121.

14. Falagas ME, Kouranos VD, Arencibia-Jorge R, Karageorgopoulos DE. 
Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact 
factor. FASEB J.2008;22(8):2623–2628. doi: 10.1096/fj.08-107938. 
PMID: 18408168.

15. Page L, Brin S, Motwani R, Winograd T. The PageRank citation ranking: 
bringing order to the web. Stanford InfoLab; 1999. Available at: http://
ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf. Accessed February 3, 
2023.

16. Dancey C, Reidy J, eds. Statistics Without Maths for Psychology, 8th 
ed. Pearson; 2004.

17. Castellani D, da Silva RD, Pelayo-Nieto M, Linden-Castro E, Ong WLK, 
Adwin Z, et al. The past, the present and the future of #UroSoMe: a 
narrative review. AME Med J.2021;6:43. doi: 10.21037/amj-20-141.

18. Loeb S, Catto J, Kutikov A. Social media offers unprecedented 
oppor tunities for vibrant exchange of professional ideas 
across continents. Eur Urol.2014;66(1):118 –119. doi: 10.1016/j.
eururo.2014.02.048. PMID: 24630683.

19. Nason GJ, O’Kelly F, Kelly ME, Phelan N, Manecksha RP, Lawrentschuk 
N, et al. The emerging use of Twitter by urological journals. BJU 
Int.2015;115(3):486–490. doi: 10.1111/bju.12840. PMID: 24925047.

20. Gudaru K, Blanco LT, Castellani D, Santamaria HT, Pelayo-Nieto M, 
Linden-Castro E, et al. Connecting the urological community: the 
s# UroSoMe experience. J Endolum Endourol.2019;2(2):e20–e29. doi: 
10.22374/jeleu.v2i2.44.

94 SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023 SIUJ.ORG

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

http://www.scimagojr.com
https://www.altmetric.com
http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf
http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/1/1999-66.pdf
http://SIUJ.org


21. Khadhouri S, Gallagher KM, MacKenzie KR, Shah TT, Gao C, Moore S, 
et al.; IDENTIFY Study group. The IDENTIFY study: the investigation 
and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with 
suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study. BJU 
Int.2021;128(4):440–450. doi: 10.1111/bju.15483. PMID: 33991045.

22. Shah TT, O’Keeffe AG, Gao C, Manning T, Peacock A, Cashman S, et al.; 
BURST Collaborative MIMIC Study Group. A multi-centre cohort study 
evaluating the role of inflammatory markers in patient’s presenting 
with acute ureteric colic (MIMIC). Int J Surg Protoc.2017;6:1–4. doi: 
10.1016/j.isjp.2017.09.002. PMID: 31851729; PMCID: PMC6913563.

23. Taylor J, Loeb S. Guideline of guidelines: social media in urology. BJU 
Int.2020;125(3):379–382. doi: 10.1111/bju.14931. PMID: 31631471.

24. Kelly BS, Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Healy GM, Horgan NA, Heffernan 
EJ. The use of Twitter by radiology journals: an analysis of Twitter 
activity and impact factor. J Am Coll Radiol.2016;13(11):1391–1396. 
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.06.041. PMID: 27577594.

25. Wong K , Piraquive J, Levi JR. Social media presence of 
otolar y ngolo g y jour nals: t he p as t , pr e s en t , and f u t ur e. 
Laryngoscope.2018;128(2):363–368. doi: 10.1002/lary.26727. PMID: 
28600839.

26. Patino-Hernandez D, Fernández-Ávila DG, Celis-Preciado CA, Munoz-
Velandia OM. Social networks and traditional metrics of impact 
in pulmonary medicine journals: a correlation study. Adv Respir 
Med.2019;87(6):209 –213. doi: 10.5603/ARM.2019.0058. PMID: 
31970722.

27. Chang J, Desai N, Gosain A. Correlation between Altmetric score and 
citations in pediatric surgery core journals. J Surg Res.2019;243:52–
58. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.010. PMID: 31154133.

28. Luc JGY, Archer MA, Arora RC, Bender EM, Blitz A, Cooke DT, et al. 
Does tweeting improve citations? One-year results from the TSSMN 
prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg.2021;111(1):296–300. 
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.04.065. PMID: 32504611.

29. Fong KY, Lim EJ, Gauhar V, Castellani D, Teoh JYC, Merseburger AS, 
et al. The utility of infographics and videographics in the modern era: 
maximising social media impact for research dissemination. World 
J Urol.2022;40(5):1285–1286. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-03980-x. 
PMID: 35257234.

30. Grauer R, Busby D, Neckonoff E, Menon M, Badani K. What’s 
in a t weet? Op timizing so cial me dia impr es sions. BJUI 
Compass. 2022;3 (6):4 0 8 – 4 09. doi: 10.10 02 / bco2.18 0. PMID: 
36267205; PMCID: PMC9579883.

31. Wilkinson S, Basto MY, Perovic G, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N, 
Murphy DG. The social media revolution is changing the conference 
experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. 
BJU Int.2015;115(5):839–846. doi: 10.1111/bju.12910. PMID: 25130687.

32. Ranjan CK. Bibliometric indices of scientific journals: time to overcome 
the obsession and think beyond the impact factor. Med J Armed Forces 
India.2017;73(2):175–177. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.03.008. PMID: 
28924319; PMCID: PMC5592267.

33. Hayon S, Tripathi H, Stormont IM, Dunne MM, Naslund MJ, Siddiqui 
MM. Twitter mentions and academic citations in the urologic literature. 
Urology.2019;123:28–33. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.041. PMID: 
30278190.

34. Cardona-Grau D, Sorokin I, Leinwand G, Welliver C. Introducing the 
Twitter impact factor: an objective measure of urology’s academic 
impact on Twitter. Eur Urol Focus.2016;2(4):412–417. doi: 10.1016/j.
euf.2016.03.006. PMID: 28723474.

35. Bellote MC, Santamaria HT, Pelayo-Nieto M, Es HP, Gadzhiev N, 
Gudaru K. Social media in the urology practice | Opinion: YES. Int Braz J 
Urol.2019;45(5):877–881. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2019.05.03. 
PMID: 31626516; PMCID: PMC6844359.

95SIUJ.ORG SIUJ  •  Volume 4, Number 2  •  March 2023

Social Media Engagement for Urology Journals — A Correlation Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Metrics

http://SIUJ.org



