[Table/Fig-2]:

Summary of the studies.

Sl No.	Author	Objective	Methodology	Results	Conclusion
1.	Thelwall M et al., [1]	To compare eleven different altmetric sources with citation data for 182 to 135,331(depending on the metric) PubMed documents published between 2010 and 2012. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research question: To what extent do the altmetric indicators associate with citation counts?	This study compares 11 altmetrics with Web of Science citations for 76 to 208,739 PubMed articles with at least one altmetric mention in each case and upto 1,891 journals per metric. It also introduces a simple sign test to overcome biases caused by different citation and usage windows.	Statistically significant associations were found between higher metric scores and higher citations for articles with positive altmetric scores in all cases with sufficient evidence (Twitter, Facebook wall posts, research highlights, blogs, mainstream media and forums) except perhaps for Google+ posts (p<0.05).	The results provide strong evidence that six of the eleven altmetrics (tweets, Facebook wall posts, research highlights, blog mentions, main stream media mentions and forum posts) associate with citation counts, at least in medical and biological sciences and for articles with at least one altmetric mention.
2.	Scarlat MM et al., [2]	To compare the traditional tools of calculation for a journal’s efficacy and visibility with the new tools that have arrived from the Internet, social media and search engines. The examples concern publications of orthopaedic surgery and in particular International Orthopaedics.	The prestige of publications, authors or journals was evaluated by the number of citations using the traditional citation metrics, most commonly the impact factor. Over the last few years, scientific medical literature has developed exponentially. The Internet has dramatically changed the way of sharing and the speed of flow of medical information. New tools have allowed readers from all over the world to access information and record their experience. Web platforms such as Facebook® and Twitter® have allowed for inputs from the general public. Professional sites such as Linkedln® and more specialised sites such as ResearchGate®, BioMed Central® and OrthoEvidence® have provided specific information on defined fields of science.	The number of papers published in different orthopaedic journals may vary; the strongest performance is however dependent on a critical volume. Strong journals have a high volume of papers and a high volume of citations. With alternative metrics and media, this reality may probably remain because high-volume publications also have high-volume social media impact	Social media may provide alternative metrics for a journal’s impact. An increasing number of researchers view articles and visit journals from social media, search engines and social platforms. That is why social media should be used by journals.
3.	Barblc D et al., [20]	To describe the traditional metrics and Altmetric scores of the 50 most frequently cited articles published in emergency medicine (EM) journals.	A structured search of the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science version of the Science Citation Index Expanded was conducted. The 200 most frequently cited articles in the top 10 EM journals (2011 Journal Citation Report) were identified. The 200 most frequently cited articles from the rest of the medical literature, matching a predefined list of keywords relevant to the specialty of EM, were identified. Two authors reviewed the lists of citations for relevance to EM and a consensus approach was used to arrive at the final lists of the top 50 cited articles. The Altmetric scores for the top 50 cited articles in EM and other journals were determined. Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation were performed.	The highest Altmetric score for EM articles was 25.0; the mean (±SD) was 1.9 (±5.0). The EM journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was Resuscitation. The highest Altmetric score for other journals was 176.0 (mean ± SD = 23.3 ± 40.8). The other journal with the highest mean article Altmetric score was the New England Journal of Medicine. The main clinical areas shared for articles were critical care sepsis; cardiology and infectious diseases Spearman correlation demonstrated weakly positive correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for EM articles and other journals.	There is a mild correlation between citation counts and Altmetric scores for the top papers in EM and other biomedical journals (p<0.05) Future research to explore this relationship and its temporal trends will benefit the understanding of the reach and dissemination of EM research within the scientific community and society in general
4.	Thoma B et al., [21]	To develop the Social Media index (SMi), to assess their impact or quality and correlation with journal impact metrics	Data from social media platforms (Google PageRanks, Alexa ranks, Facebook likes, Twitter followers, and Google+ followers) for Emergency Medicine and Critical Care (EMCC) blogs and podcasts to derive three normalised (ordinal, logarithmic, and raw) formulas. The most statistically robust formula was assessed for 1) temporal stability using repeated measures and website age, and 2) correlation with impact by applying it to EMCC journals and measuring the correlation with known journal impact metrics	The logarithmic version of the SMi containing four metrics is Alexa, Page Rank, Twitter and Facebook. The strongest correlations were seen with the Immediacy Index (r=0.609; p<0.001) and Article Influence Score (r=0.608; p<0.001). Five-year Journal Impact Factor (r=0.526, p-value=0.001), Journal Impact Factor (r=0.526, p-value=0.003), and the Eigenfactor score (r=0.425, p-value=0.02) correlated less strongly.	The SMi has the potential to be a stable and accessible indicator of their impact. If the results of this study can be replicated, it would benefit medical professionals by identifying resources for learners and assessing the scholarly impact of educators that are using these media.
5.	Baatoli Z et al., [22]	To assess the scientific output of scholars at Kashan University of Medical Sciences by the end of March 2014 based on scientometric measures of Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley.	A survey method was used to study the articles published in Scopus journals by scholars at Kashan University of Medical Sciences by the end of March 2014. The required data were collected from Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley. The data were analysed with descriptive statistics. Also, the Spearman correlation was used between the number of views of articles in ResearchGate with citation number of the articles in Scopus and reading frequency of the articles in Mendeley with citation number in Scopus were examined using the Spearman correlation in SPSS 16.	Five-hundred and thirty-three articles were indexed in the Scopus Citation Database by the end of March 2014. Collectively, those articles were cited 1,315 times. The articles were covered by ResearchGate (74%) more than Mendeley (44%). In addition, 98% of the articles indexed in ResearchGate and 92% of the articles indexed in Mendeley were viewed at least once. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the number of views of the articles in ResearchGate and Mendeley and the number of citations of the articles in Scopus (r=0.310 and r=0.247 respectively (p<0.01).	Coverage and the number of visitors were higher in ResearchGate than in Mendeley. The increase in the number of views of articles in ResearchGate and Mendeley also increased the number of citations of the papers. However, the correlation between the numbers of views of articles in ResearchGate was associated with higher citations of reading frequency of the articles in Mendeley with the number of citations to the articles
6.	De Gregori MD et al., [23]	To investigate the impact of scientific publications of the Italian SIMPAR (Study in Multidisciplinary Pain Research) group by using altmetrics, defined as nontraditional metrics constituting an alternative to more traditional citation-impact metrics, such as impact factor and h-index.	For all the 12 members of the group analysed (pain therapists, biologists, and pharmacologists), Open researcher and Contributor ID and Impact story accounts were created, and synchronized these data. Manually, we calculated the level metrics for each article by dividing the data obtained from the research community by those obtained from the public community. We analysed 759 articles, 18 of which were published by the SIMPAR Group.	It was found that the alternative metrics were generally correlated low for facebook post, impact story views and tweets, (p>0.05) with the exception of those for Mendeley readers (r=0.47, P<0.0001)	We found significant correlations between the SIMPAR Group collective publications and their impact on the indicator linked to research activity (Mendeley readers), although not to public discussion (such as Facebook and tweets).
7.	Allen HG et al., [24]	To quantify the impact of social media release on views and downloads of articles in the clinical pain sciences.	Sixteen PLOS ONE articles were blogged and released via Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and ResearchBlogging. org on one of two randomly selected dates. The other date served as a control. The primary outcomes were the rate of HTML views and PDF downloads of the article, over a seven-day period. Scopus citation count was taken almost nine months after the completion of the experimental period, and 1-2 years after the publication date of the target articles, as a conventional measure of impact.	The critical result was an increase in both outcome variables in the week after the blog post and social media release. The final result, that citation count did not relate to any social media measures, casts doubt over the intuitively sensible idea that social media impact reflects future citation-related impact. Citations at 03/09/2012 related to Total PDF downloads (Pearson r = 0.51; p= 0.045)but not to Total HTML views (Pearson r = 0.06; p = 0.826).	The size of the effect is not related to conventional social media metrics, such as reach, engagement and virality. Our results highlight the difference between social media reach and social media impact and suggest that the latter is not a simple function of the former.