SectionWhat Are Altmetrics?

Altmetrics is a portmanteau of “alternative metrics” — a category of bibliometric indicators designed to measure the attention and impact of scholarly research beyond traditional academic citations. While citation counts in journals like Nature or Science remain the gold standard for measuring academic impact, they capture only one dimension of how research influences the world. Altmetrics fill this gap by tracking how research is discussed, shared, and used across the broader digital landscape.

### The Emergence of Altmetrics The altmetrics movement emerged in the early 2010s as social media platforms, open access publishing, and digital communication transformed how research is disseminated. Key milestones include: – 2010: The term “altmetrics” was coined by Jason Priem, a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina, in a tweet that sparked widespread discussion in the bibliometrics community. – 2011: Priem and colleagues published a foundational manifesto in the journal Scientometrics, outlining the need for complementary metrics to capture the full spectrum of research impact.

– 2012: Altmetric LLP (now part of Elsevier) launched the Altmetric “donut” and score system, providing the first widely adopted altmetric aggregation platform. – 2013–2015: Major publishers including Springer Nature, Wiley, and Elsevier began embedding altmetric scores on article pages, normalizing their use. – 2016: The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) published the first standards for altmetrics, establishing guidelines for responsible use and reporting.

### Why Do Altmetrics Matter? Traditional citation metrics have significant limitations: – They take years to accumulate — a paper may need 2–5 years to receive meaningful citations. – They miss non-academic impact — a study that influences public policy or clinical practice may never be cited in a journal article.

– They are inaccessible to the public — few people outside academia understand impact factors or h-indexes. – They undercount certain outputs — datasets, software, and preprints are often not cited formally. Altmetrics address these gaps by providing immediate, granular, and multidimensional signals of research engagement.

—

SectionTypes of Altmetrics

Altmetrics encompass a wide range of data sources, each capturing a different type of engagement with scholarly work. The most widely tracked categories include: ### 1. Social Media Mentions Social media platforms are the largest and most visible source of altmetric data.

These include: – Twitter/X: The most heavily tracked platform. Researchers, journalists, and institutions tweet links to papers, often with commentary. Twitter mentions are the dominant component of most altmetric scores.

– Facebook: Posts and shares by researchers, science communication pages, and general users. – LinkedIn: Professional discussions of research in industry and academic contexts. – Reddit: Discussions in specialized subreddits (e.g., r/science, r/medicine) and general forums.

– Weibo, Mastodon, and other platforms: Regional and decentralized platforms are increasingly tracked. Social media mentions indicate public awareness and science communication success, though they do not necessarily indicate that the content was read or understood in depth. ### 2.

News Coverage Mainstream and specialized news media coverage is a powerful indicator of research that has societal relevance. Altmetric platforms track mentions in: – International news outlets (BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, Reuters) – Science-focused publications (Scientific American, New Scientist, Quanta Magazine) – Regional and local newspapers – Online news aggregators and syndicates News coverage suggests that research has crossed into public discourse and may be influencing policy debates, public health messaging, or cultural conversations. ### 3.

Blog Posts and Science Communication Research blogs and science communication platforms provide more nuanced discussions than social media. Tracked sources include: – Science blogging networks (ResearchBlogging.org, ScienceBlogs, Discover Magazine blogs) – Individual researcher blogs – University and institutional science communication blogs – Policy institute and think tank blogs Blog mentions often include critical commentary and synthesis, offering a richer qualitative signal than a simple tweet. ### 4.

Policy Document Citations One of the most valuable altmetric indicators is citation in policy documents. When research is referenced in government reports, parliamentary briefings, or international organization publications, it signals real-world policy impact. Tracked sources include: – Government policy papers (UK, EU, US, and other national governments) – Parliamentary and congressional reports – United Nations and WHO documents – NGO and advocacy organization reports – Think tank publications This category is particularly important for researchers in public health, environmental science, economics, and social policy.

### 5. Online Bookmarks and Reference Managers Bookmarks in academic reference management tools indicate that researchers are saving and intending to read a paper. Key platforms include: – Mendeley: The most tracked reference manager.

Mendeley readership counts are included in most altmetric aggregations and are sometimes considered a bridge between traditional and alternative metrics. – Zotero, CiteULike, and Connotea: Smaller but still tracked platforms. High bookmark counts suggest that a paper is considered useful or important by other researchers, even if it has not yet been formally cited.

### 6. Additional Sources Other tracked sources include: – Wikipedia citations: Indicates that research is considered authoritative enough to be included in encyclopedic knowledge. – Peer review platforms: Publons, F1000Prime recommendations.

– YouTube and video platforms: Educational videos, conference recordings, and science communication content. – Stack Exchange and Q&A sites: Technical discussions on platforms like Stack Overflow and Cross Validated. – Post-publication commentary platforms: PubPeer, Retraction Watch, and PubMed Commons.

—

SectionHow Altmetrics Are Calculated

### Altmetric.com (The Altmetric Score) Altmetric.com, founded in 2011 and acquired by Elsevier in 2022, is the most widely used altmetric aggregation platform. Its signature output is the Altmetric Attention Score — a weighted, colored “donut” badge that appears on millions of article pages across publisher websites. #### How the Altmetric Attention Score Is Calculated The score is derived from a weighted algorithm that assigns different point values to different sources of attention: | Source Category | Weight | Rationale | |—————–|——–|———–| | News coverage | High (8 points per mention) | Rare and difficult to achieve; indicates broad societal relevance | | Blog posts | Medium-High (5 points per mention) | More substantive than tweets; indicates considered engagement | | Policy documents | High (varies by source) | Direct evidence of real-world impact | | Twitter/X | Low (1 point per mention by a general user; more for verified accounts) | Easy to generate; volume can be high but meaning varies | | Wikipedia | Medium (3 points per mention) | Indicates enduring knowledge value | | Facebook | Low-Medium (0.25 points per mention) | General public engagement | | Mendeley | Low (0.25 points per reader) | Early indicator of researcher interest | | LinkedIn | Low (1 point per mention) | Professional engagement | Important limitations of the score: – The exact algorithm is proprietary and not fully disclosed.

– The score is not normalized by publication date or field, so older papers and those in high-traffic fields accumulate higher scores. – A single tweet from a high-follower account may count the same as a tweet from a new account. – There is no universal “good score” — interpretation depends heavily on field and timing.

#### The Altmetric Donut Badge The Altmetric donut visually summarizes attention sources by color: – Blue: Twitter – Yellow: Blogs – Red: Mainstream news – Gray: Other sources (Wikipedia, policy, etc.) The number in the center is the total Altmetric Attention Score. ### PlumX (Plum Analytics) PlumX, developed by Plum Analytics and acquired by Elsevier in 2017, is the second major altmetric platform. It organizes metrics into five categories (the “PlumX Five”): 1.

Usage: Downloads, clicks, views, library holdings 2. Captures: Bookmarks, saves, favorites (Mendeley, Zotero, etc.) 3. Mentions: News, blog posts, comments, reviews, Wikipedia 4.

Social Media: Shares, likes, tweets, +1s 5. Citations: Traditional citation indexes (Scopus, PubMed, etc.) Unlike Altmetric.com, PlumX does not produce a single composite score. Instead, it provides a dashboard view of all five categories, allowing users to see the complete distribution of attention types.

This approach is praised for transparency but criticized for being harder to interpret at a glance. ### Other Altmetric Platforms – Crossref Event Data: An open, community-driven project providing raw event data (mentions, bookmarks, etc.) associated with DOIs. – Impactstory: A nonprofit, open-source tool founded by Jason Priem that provides free altmetric profiles for researchers.

– Dimensions (Digital Science): Combines traditional citations with altmetrics in a unified analytics platform. —

SectionAltmetrics vs. Traditional Citation Metrics

Altmetrics and traditional metrics (citation counts, journal impact factor, h-index) are not competitors but complements. Each measures a different aspect of research impact, and together they provide a more complete picture. ### When Altmetrics Complement Traditional Metrics | Scenario | What Traditional Metrics Show | What Altmetrics Add | |———-|——————————|———————| | Newly published paper | Zero citations (too early) | Immediate social media buzz, news coverage, Mendeley bookmarks | | Public health study | Moderate citation count | Extensive news coverage and policy citations indicating real-world impact | | Open dataset or software | Rarely cited in journals | Downloads, GitHub stars, blog discussions | | Science communication paper | Low citations | High Twitter engagement, blog mentions, Wikipedia references | | Controversial finding | Citations may be critical | Intense social media debate, news coverage, PubPeer discussions | | Interdisciplinary work | Scattered across journals | Consolidated social media attention from multiple communities | ### When Altmetrics Do Not Replace Traditional Metrics 1.

Quality control: A tweet about a paper does not mean the paper is methodologically sound. Traditional peer review and citation context remain essential for quality assessment. 2.

Scholarly depth: A paper with 100 tweets may have zero academic influence if other researchers do not build upon it. Citations from peer-reviewed sources indicate deeper intellectual engagement. 3.

Gaming and manipulation: Social media metrics are easier to manipulate than citations. Coordinated tweet campaigns, bot networks, and click farms can artificially inflate altmetric scores. Traditional citations are harder to fabricate at scale.

4. Field differences: A paper in molecular biology may naturally generate more tweets than one in philology due to differences in researcher social media usage, not because the former is more important. 5.

Temporal dynamics: Altmetric attention peaks quickly and then decays. Traditional citations accumulate over years and may better reflect long-term scholarly value. ### The Responsible Use of Both Metrics Best practice is to use altmetrics as supplementary evidence, not as primary evaluation criteria.

Funders, institutions, and hiring committees should: – Consider altmetrics alongside traditional metrics, not in isolation. – Examine the sources of attention (a BBC article is more meaningful than 100 identical tweets). – Look at qualitative context (what are people saying about the paper?).

– Account for field-specific norms when comparing scores. – Avoid using altmetrics as sole criteria for promotion, hiring, or funding decisions. —

SectionLimitations and Criticisms of Altmetrics

Despite their promise, altmetrics face significant criticism from the scholarly community. Understanding these limitations is essential for responsible use. ### 1.

Lack of Standardization There is no single agreed-upon definition of “altmetrics” or standardized methodology for calculating them. Altmetric.com, PlumX, and Crossref Event Data all use different data sources, weighting schemes, and quality filters. This makes cross-platform comparisons difficult and can lead to inconsistent evaluations.

### 2. Susceptibility to Manipulation Social media metrics are far easier to manipulate than citations. Concerns include: – Bot networks and fake accounts generating artificial mentions – Coordinated tweet campaigns by researchers or institutions – Clickbait headlines driving attention to low-quality research – Paid promotion of articles on social media While traditional citation metrics are not immune to manipulation (via citation cartels and excessive self-citation), the barrier is higher.

### 3. Shallow Engagement A tweet or Facebook share does not mean the paper was read, understood, or endorsed. Many social media users share articles based on headlines alone.

This shallow engagement problem means that high altmetric scores may reflect effective marketing rather than scientific merit. ### 4. Demographic and Geographic Bias Altmetric data is heavily skewed toward: – English-language research (non-English papers receive far less social media attention) – Researchers in Western countries (Twitter usage patterns differ globally) – STEM fields (humanities and social science researchers use social media less) – Younger researchers (more active on social media) This bias can systematically disadvantage researchers from non-English-speaking countries, humanities scholars, and older academics.

### 5. Platform Volatility The altmetric landscape changes rapidly. Twitter’s API policies have shifted multiple times, affecting data availability.

Platform popularity rises and falls (e.g., the decline of Google+, the rise of Mastodon). This volatility means that altmetric scores from different years may not be comparable. ### 6.

The “Attention vs. Impact” Problem Altmetrics measure attention, not necessarily impact. A paper that goes viral because it is controversial, sensational, or flawed may have a higher Altmetric score than a technically brilliant but narrow study.

Distinguishing between “attention” and “impact” requires qualitative judgment that metrics alone cannot provide. ### 7. Privacy and Surveillance Concerns Tracking individual researchers’ social media activity raises privacy concerns.

Some researchers worry that altmetric surveillance could discourage open discussion, deter criticism, or create pressure to engage in performative social media activity rather than deep research. —

Key Takeaways

• Altmetrics capture social media, news, policy mentions.
• Complement traditional citations.
• Faster but less standardized.
• Use alongside citations.

FAQPeople also ask

What are examples of altmetrics?

Social media mentions, news coverage, policy citations, blog posts.

Are altmetrics as reliable as citations?

Altmetrics capture different dimensions of impact.

Who coined the term altmetrics?

Jason Priem in 2010.

Can altmetrics indicate societal impact?

Yes. They reveal influence beyond academia.

SourcesReferences & further reading

• Altmetric.com
• Priem et al. (2011)
• NISO