{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019253910950661854, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.87603305785124, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How do Alternative and Traditional Dissemination Metrics Compare in Medical Education Scholarship?

Medical educators need to demonstrate the dissemination of scholarship for academic promotion. Dissemination impact has traditionally been measured using citation‐based metrics. In recent years, other platforms (such as social media tools like Twitter and Facebook) have provided new avenues for authors to promote their work to both scholarly and non‐scholarly audiences. While alternative metrics (altmetrics) can capture non‐traditional dissemination data such as attention generated on social media, the academic value of altmetrics in medical education is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine which altmetrics are indices of access counts and citations in a highly cited, general interest medical education journal.