Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Evaluating Funding for Authors Achieving High Citations vs. Online Popularity
Daniel Farivar1, Amar S Vadhera, Kenneth D Illingworth
1From the Department of Orthopaedics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Farivar, Illingworth, and Skaggs), and the Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA (Vadhera).
Introduction:
The Altmetric score is a validated tool that measures online attention of scientific studies. A relationship between government/industry funding for authors and their study's citations have been previously demonstrated. It is not known whether funding is related to greater online attention. We hypothesize authors publishing studies achieving greater online attention (higher Altmetric scores) receive greater monetary support from industry while authors publishing studies achieving critical acclaim (more citations) receive greater monetary support from the National Institute of Health (NIH).
Methods:
Top spine surgery studies between 2010 and 2021 were selected based on Altmetric scores and citation number. The Open Payments Database was accessed to evaluate industry financial relationships while the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was accessed to evaluate NIH funding. Payments were compared between groups and analyzed with the Student t-test, analysis of variance, and chi square analysis. Alpha <0.05.
Results:
There were 60 and 51 authors with payment data in the top 50 Altmetric and top 50 citation studies, respectively, with eight authors having studies in both groups. Total industry payments between groups were not markedly different. The eight authors with studies in both groups received markedly more industry payments for consulting, travel/lodging, and faculty/speaking fees. Authors with articles in both groups (50%) were significantly more likely to receive NIH support, compared with authors of the top Altmetric articles (5%; P < 0.001) and top citation articles (12%; P < 0.001). Authors receiving NIH support received significantly less industry payments compared with authors not receiving NIH support ($148,544 versus $2,159,526; P < 0.001).
Discussion:
These findings reject our hypothesis: no notable differences for industry payments and NIH funding between authors for top Altmetric and citation studies. Authors receiving funding from industry versus the NIH are generally two distinct groups, but there is a small group supported by both. These studies achieve both critical acclaim (citations) and online popularity (Altmetric scores).
Data Availability:
Data can be available on reasonable request.
More Related Videos
07:50Global and Current Research Trends of Single-Cell Sequencing in Cancer: A Bibliometric and Visualization Study
Published on: April 18, 2025
07:50A Metadata Extraction Approach for Clinical Case Reports to Enable Advanced Understanding of Biomedical Concepts
Published on: September 20, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Outliers and Influential Points
The Availability Heuristic
Bioequivalence: Overview
Statistical Significance
Critical Values
Significance Testing: Overview