Document Type : Original Article


1 Medical Biotechnology Research Center, School of Nursing, Midwifery and paramedicine, Guilan, University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran, Department of Medical Library and Information, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran,

2 Physiology Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman,Iran

3 Department of Medical Library and Information, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The advent of social networking sites has facilitated the dissemination
of scientific research. This article aims to investigate the presence of Iranian highly cited clinicians
in social networking sites.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a scientometrics study. Essential Science Indicator (ESI)
was searched for Iranian highly cited papers in clinical medicine during November–December 2015.
Then, the authors of the papers were checked and a list of authors was obtained. In the second
phase, the authors’ names were searched in the selected social networking sites (ResearchGate
[RG], Academia, Mendeley, LinkedIn). The total citations and h‑index in Scopus were also gathered.
RESULTS: Fifty‑five highly cited papers were retrieved. A total of 107 authors participated in writing
these papers. RG was the most popular (64.5%) and LinkedIn and Academia were in 2nd and
3rd places. None of the authors of highly cited papers were subscribed to Mendeley. A positive direct
relationship was observed between visibility at social networking sites with citation and h‑index rate.
A significant relationship was observed between the RG score, citations, reads indicators in RG, and
citation numbers and there was a significant relationship between the number of document indicator
in Academia and the citation numbers.
CONCLUSION: It seems putting the papers in social networking sites can influence the citation
rate. We recommend all scientists to be present at social networking sites to have better chance of
visibility and also citation.


1. Yu MC, Wu YC, Alhalabi W, Kao HY, Wu WH. Research gate:
An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Comput
Hum Behav 2016;55(Pt B):1001‑6.
2. Chen C, Sun K, Wu G, Tang Q, Qin J, Chiu K, et al. The impact
of internet resources on scholarly communication: A citation
analysis. Scientometrics 2009;81:459‑74.
3. Mas‑Bleda A, Thelwall M, Kousha K, Aguillo IF. Do Highly‑cited
researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics
4. Thelwall M, Kousha K. Web indicators for research evaluation.
Part 2: Social media metrics. El Prof Inf 2015;24:607‑20.
5. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A,
Hoving C, et al. 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:e85.
6. Eytan T, Benabio J, Golla V, Parikh R, Stein S. Social media and
the health system. Perm J 2011;15:71‑4.
7. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges
and opportunities of Social Media. Bus Horiz 2010;53:59‑68.
8. Bornmann L. Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader
impact of research. Aslib Proc 2015;67:305‑19.
9. Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Russell B, Canty N, Watkinson A. Social
media use in the research workflow. Learn Publ 2011;24:183‑95.
10. Haustein S, Sugimoto C, Larivière V. Guest editorial: Social
media in scholarly communication. Aslib Proc 2015;67: Available
11. Van Noorden R. Online collaboration: Scientists and the social
network. Nature 2014;512:126‑9.
12. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. The state of h index research. Is the h
index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO
Rep 2009;10:2‑6.
13. Antonakis J, Lalive R. Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus
the Hirsch h. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2008;59:956‑69.
14. Lokker C, McKibbon KA, McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL,
Haynes RB. Prediction of citation counts for clinical articles at
two years using data available within three weeks of publication:
Retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2008;336:655‑7.
15. Tsai YL, Lee CC, Chen SC, Yen ZS. Top‑cited articles in emergency
medicine. Am J Emerg Med 2006;24:647‑54.
16. Rosenberg AL, Tripathi RS, Blum J. The most influential articles
in critical care medicine. J Crit Care 2010;25:157‑70.
17. Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery. Part I:
The 100 top‑cited papers in neurosurgical journals. J Neurosurg
18. Ponce FA, Lozano AM. Highly cited works in neurosurgery.
Part II: The citation classics. J Neurosurg 2010;112:233‑46.
19. Khan NR, Auschwitz T, McAbee JH, Boop FA, Klimo P Jr. Highly
cited publications in pediatric neurosurgery: Part 2. Childs Nerv
Syst 2013;29:2215‑28.
20. Lefaivre KA, Shadgan B, O’Brien PJ. 100 most cited articles in
orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:1487‑97.
21. Li JT. What we learn from the shifts in highly‑cited data from
2001 to 2014? Scientometrics 2016;108:57‑82.
22. Haustein S, Peters I, Bar‑Ilan J, Priem J, Shema H, Terliesner J.
Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric
community. Scientometrics 2014;101:1145‑63.
23. Bar‑Ilan J, Haustein S, Peters I, Priem S, Shema H, Terliesner J.
Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web. In:
Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and
Technology Indicators. Montre×al: Science‑Metrix and OST; 2012.
p. 98‑109.
24. Vaughan L, Shaw D. Web citation data for impact assessment:
A comparison of four science disciplines. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol
25. Neylon C, Wu S. Article‑level metrics and the evolution of
scientific impact. PLoS Biol 2009;7:e1000242.
26. Watson AB. Comparing citations and downloads for individual
articles at the Journal of Vision. J Vision 2009;9:1‑4.
27. Bornmann L. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of
research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of
altmetrics. J Informetr 2014;8:895‑903.
28. Campos‑Freire F, Ruas‑Araujo J. The use of professional and
scientific social networks: The case of three Galician universities.
Prof Inf 2016;25:431‑40.
29. Treem JW, Leonardi PM. Social media use in organizations:
Exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence,
and association. Ann Int Commun Assoc 2013;36:143‑89.30. von Muhlen M, Ohno‑Machado L. Reviewing social media use
by clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19:777‑81.
31. Mohammadi E, Thelwall M, Haustein S, Larivière V. Who
reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user
categories. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66:1832‑46.
32. MadhusudhanM. Use of social networking sites by research scholars
of the University of Delhi: A study. Int Inf Libr Rev 2012;44:100‑13.
33. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate: Disseminating,
communicating, and measuring scholarship? J Assoc Inf Sci
Technol. 2015;66:876‑89.
34. Parto P, Goltaji M, Serati Shirazi M. Islamic country highly‑cited
papers in the Essential science Indicators (ESI). In: Yaminfirooz M,
editor. Third National Conference on Science and Production in
the Field of Medical Research, 22 Dec 2011. Babol: Ketabdar; 2011.
p. 16‑30.
35. Mirjalali SH, Akrami Abarghoi S. The most cited authoe in the
field of clinical medicine: A concentratin on its transdisciplinary
relations in ISI. Health Inf Manage 2010;7:283‑92.
36. Saadat Y. Iranian Chemists Tend to Subscribe to the Scientific
Study of Social Networks Based on Characteristics of Knowledge
and its Recognition [Master’s Thesis]. Shiraz: Shiraz Univerdity;
37. LiX, Thelwall M, Giustini D. Validating online reference managers
for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics 2012;91:461‑71.
38. Crawford M. Biologists using social‑networking sites to boost
collaboration. Bioscience 2011;61:736.
39. Asnafi AR, Pakdaman Naeini M, Moradi S, Ghazizadeh H,
editors. Study on Activities of Payame Noor University (I.R.Iran)
Faculty Members in Research Gate. International Conference on
Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics and 16th COLLNET
Meeting. Delhi, India; 2015.
40. Rahimi F, Didegah F. A survey on hot papers of middle‑east
countries in database of Essential Science Indicators (ESI). Publij
41. OkhovatiM, BazrafshanA, ZareM, MoradzadehM, MokhtariAM.
Research performance measures and the moderating role
of faculty characteristics in epidemiology. Glob J Health Sci