This article provides an introduction to the use of altmetrics as a tool to assess research impact. In particular, it looks at the evidence behind claims that altmetrics allow the impact of research to be measured in days rather than years. Low correlations between altmetrics and article citations make it doubtful that altmetrics can reliably predict future citations. In addition, there are good reasons to qualify statements that altmetrics measure the wider impact of research on society. Librarians should be careful not to overstate the value of altmetrics when recommending their use as a complement to more traditional measures of research quality.
This paper presents a review of altmetrics or alternative metrics. This concept is defined as the creation and study of new indicators for analysing scientific and academic research activity based onWeb 2.0. The underlying premise is that variables such as mentions in blogs, numberof tweets or saves ofan articleby researchersin reference management systems, may be a valid measure of the use and impactof scientific publications. In this respect,these measuresare becoming particularly relevant, being at the centre of debate within the bibliometric community. Firstly,an explanation is given of the main platforms and indicators for this type of measurement. Subsequently,a study is undertaken of a selection of papers from the field of communication, comparing the number of citations received withtheir 2.0 indicators.The results show that the most cited articles within recent years also have significantly higher altmetric indicators. Next follows a review of the principal empirical studies undertaken, centering on the correlations between bibliometric and alternative indicators. To conclude, the main limitations of altmetrics are highlighted,alongside a reflective consideration of the role altmetrics may play in capturing the impactof research in Web 2.0 platforms.
Altmetric measurements derived from the social web are increasingly advocated and used as early indicators of article impact and usefulness. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic scientific evidence that altmetrics are valid proxies of either impact or utility although a few case studies have reported medium correlations between specific altmetrics and citation rates for individual journals or fields. Finally, the coverage of all the altmetrics except for Twitter seems to be low and so it is not clear if they are prevalent enough to be useful in practice.
Alternative metrics demonstrate the value and influence of scholars’ work apart fromtraditional citation counts and can enhance the impact of a CV. Altmetrics provideadditional, supplementary information and can balance misleading metrics tied toparticular journals. More timely than traditional metrics, altmetrics quickly reveal theimpact of recent work and add authority to different types of scholarly products notcaptured as articles. Altmetrics can capture social media references that escape traditionalmetrics and reflect public engagement prompted by scholarly writing. The availability ofaltmetrics expands publishing opportunities to include new venues and stimulatesinnovative strategies for evaluating research. When included in a CV altmetrics must beaccurate, clear and meaningful