Paper published in El profesional de la información , vol. 23, n.4, pp. 359-366 doi:10-3145/epi.2014.jul.03

## New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com

Nicolás Robinson-García , Daniel Torres-Salinas , Zohreh Zahedi  and Rodrigo Costas 1 2 3 3

1 EC3:  Evaluación  de  la  Ciencia  y  de  la  Comunicación  Científica,  Departamento  de  Información  y Documentación, Universidad de Granada, Spain

2 EC3Metrics, Granada, Spain

3 Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands

## Abstract

This paper analyzes Altmetric.com, one of the most important altmetric data providers currently used. We have analyzed  a  set  of  publications  with  DOI  number  indexed  in  the  Web  of  Science  during  the period 2011-2013 and collected their data with the Altmetric API. 19% of the original set of papers was retrieved  from  Altmetric.com  including  some  altmetric  data.  We  identified  16  different  social  media sources from which Altmetric.com retrieves data. However five of them cover 95.5% of the total set. Twitter (87.1%) and Mendeley (64.8%) have the highest coverage. We conclude that Altmetric.com is a transparent, rich and accurate tool for altmetric data. Nevertheless, there are still potential limitations on its exhaustiveness as well as on the selection of social media sources that need further research.

Keywords: Altmetric.com; Twitter; Mendeley; altmetrics; social impact; coverage; Web 2.0

Título: Nuevos datos, nuevas posibilidades: Revelando el interior de Altmetric.com

## Resumen

Este  trabajo  analiza  Altmetric.com,  una  de  las  fuentes  de  datos  altmétricos  más  usadas  actualmente. Para  ello  hemos  cruzado  un  set  de  publicaciones  con  DOI  indexadas  en  la  Web  of  Science  para  el periodo 2011-2013 con la API de Altmetric.com. Solo el 19% de las publicaciones de nuestro set estaban indexadas en Altmetric.com. Este recurso obtiene datos altmétricos de 16 redes sociales distintas. No obstante, cinco de ellas representan el 95.5% del set de datos recuperado. Twitter (87.1%) y Mendeley (64.8%) cubren un mayor número de publicaciones. Concluimos destacando Altmetric.com como una herramienta  rica,  transparente  y  precisa  en  sus  datos  altmétricos.  No  obstante,  ofrece  aún  algunas dudas acerca de la exhaustividad de la recuperación así como de la selección de fuentes que requieren más investigación.

Palabras  clave: Altmetric.com;  Twitter;  Mendeley;  indicadores  altmétricos;  impacto  social;  cobertura; Web 2.0

## Introduction

Citation analysis has been traditionally confronted with different and opposed views as to its suitability to quantitatively measure the 'scientific impact' of publications. In brief, these have to  do  with  citation  biases,  publication  delays  or  process  biases  derived  from  peer  review limitations ( Bollen; van de Sompel , 2006). Several alternatives have been proposed, especially since the 1990s and the expansion of the Internet and the digital media. Among others here we highlight the use of acknowledgments or influmetrics ( Cronin; Weaver , 1995), web links or webometrics ( Almind; Ingwersen , 1997) and usage metrics ( Kurz; Bollen , 2010). However, the most recent proposal as an alternative to traditional citation analysis has become a hot topic within the bibliometric community. Altmetrics or  the use of social media-based indicators to quantify the social impact of scholarly information was first proposed by Priem et al. (2010). Since then it has become a research front of itself producing its own scientific corpus as it has been received by the research community.

Altmetric proponents claim that such indicators have the potential to complement or improve the  more  traditional  scientific  evaluation  systems  ( Priem , et  al , 2010).  They  base  their arguments stating that almetric indicators provide a wider picture of the relevance and impact of scientific contributions (or 'research products') ( Piwowar , 2013); also, they are produced at greater speed than citations and end with the monopoly exerted by citation indexes as they come from open sources. However, their strongest claim is that they can capture other aspects of impact different from those derived from citation counting. However, the reality is that they are still under-developed and much study is needed before confirming such arguments, which are currently either questionable or simple promises ( Wouters; Costas , 2012).

Hence, there are still serious concerns as to the meaning of these indicators ( Torres; Cabezas; Jiménez , 2013; Torres-Salinas;  Cabezas-Clavijo , 2013)  and  the  suitability  of  the  sources ( Thelwall et  al., 2013).  So  far,  studies  have  reported  1)  a  relatively  weak  correlation  with citations (i.e., Thelwall et al., 2013; Costas; Zahedi; Wouters , 2014), 2) their potential to offer complement aspects of impact remains unknown and 3) Twitter, blogs mentions, Mendeley readers,  F1000  recommendations  or  news  outlets  seem  to  be  among  the  most  relevant sources ( Li; Thelwall , 2012; Li; Thelwall; Giustini , 2012; Haustein et al., 2013; Costas; Zahedi; Wouters ,  2014; Zahedi;  Costas;  Wouters ,  in  press).  Regarding  this  latter  issue,  many  tools have appeared in the last few years recollecting and providing these metrics. The main ones are ImpactStory.org , Plum Analytics  and Altmetric.com . 1 2 3

Altmetric.com  is  currently  one  of  the  most  important  altmetric  data  providers.  It  captures information regarding the impact of a paper from various social media sources developing a weighted score. In order to do so it disambiguates links to articles, unifying links to PubMed records,  Arxiv  identifiers,  DOI  numbers  or  publisher's  sites.  Although  some  have  warned against the use of aggregated altmetric scores ( Davis , 2013), there has been less debate about the richness and diversity of the data provided. One of the major problems potential users face when dealing with this source is that such diversity and richness of data is actually difficult to grasp. Although the web company provides extensive information of its contents ( http://support.altmetric.com ) one would still have difficulties in understanding the broadness of the data and possibilities that this source could provide.

The  aim  of  this  paper  is  to  explore  Altmetric.com  as  a  source  for  developing  altmetric indicators. In order to unveil the potential use of this tool, we provide a comprehensive and practical  view  on  the  contents  available  in  Altmetric.com.  Specifically,  we  will  answer  the following research questions:

- 1. Which data sources are included in Altmetric.com and how are they structured?
- 2. What is the coverage of Altmetric.com and which data sources cover more altmetric impact of publications?

For this we have performed a practical extraction of data from Altmetric.com and carried out a detailed analysis of the data provided by this tool.

## Material and methods

In  order  to  explore  Altmetric.com,  we  selected  all  publications  between  2011  and  2013 4 indexed  in  the  Web  of  Science  database  using  the  CWTS  (University  of  Leiden)  in-house version.  From  this  set  of  papers  we  selected  only  those  which  included  a  DOI  number.  In January  2014  we  matched  a  total  of  2,792,706  DOI  numbers  with  the  Altmetric  API ( https://api.altmetric.com/ ). We retrieved a total of 516,150 records from the Altmetric API. This means that roughly 19% of all publication with DOI number during the study time period had  received  some  kind  of  social  media  attention.  However,  we  most  note  that  there  are errors  on  some  of  the  unique  DOIs  present  in  Altmetric.com.  Also,  not  all  papers  in Altmetric.com include DOI information. For each record we obtained a file on Javascript Object Notation format (JSON) . The JSON files include raw data collected by Altmetric.com for each 5 publication. Table  1 shows  the  structure  of  each  file  indicating  the  type  of  information provided for each section.

Table 1. Disaggregated structure from a record provided by the Altmetric API

| Description                                                  | Example of fields extracted                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Summary of metrics as shown in the Altmetric.com bookmarklet | "counts":{"readers":{"mendeley","citeulike","connotea"},"facebook":{"unique_users_count ","unique_users":[],"posts_count"},"blogs":{"unique_users_count","unique_users":[],"posts _count"},"news":{"unique_users_count","unique_users":[],"posts_count"},"pinterest":{"uni que_users_count","unique_users":[],"posts_count"},"reddit":{"unique_users_count","uniqu e_users":[],"posts_count"},"twitter":{"unique_users_count","unique_users":[],"posts_coun t"},"video":{"unique_users_count","unique_users":[],"posts_count"}},"linkedin":{"unique_u sers_count","unique_users":[]',"posts_count","total":[]"... |
| Bibliographic description of the paper                       | "citation":{"title","authors":[],"pubdate","volume","issue","startpage","endpage","doi","P MID","arxiv_id","journal","altmetric_jid","links":[],"first_seen_on"} "altmetric_score":{"score","score_history":{"1d","2d","3d","4d","5d","6d","1w","1m","3m",                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| Comparison and evolution of the aggregated Altmetric score   | ne","total_number_of_other_articles","this_scored_higher_than","this_scored_higher_tha n_pct","percentile","rank_type":"approximate"},"similar_age_3m":{"rank","mean","median ","sample_size","sparkline","total_number_of_other_articles","this_scored_higher_than"," this_scored_higher_than_pct","percentile","rank_type":"approximate"},...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| Demographics (Twitter): Public type and country              | "demographics":{"poster_types":{"member_of_the_public","researcher","practitioner","sci ence_communicator"},"geo":{"twitter":{"*Country*":"*number of users*"}}} "posts":{"twitter":[{{"url","posted_on","license","summary","author":{"name","image","id_ on_source","followers"},"tweet_id"}],"blogs":[{"title"{"title","url","posted_on","summary",                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| Altmetric data disaggregated by provider                     | "author":{"name","url","description"}}],"facebook":[{"title","url","posted_on","summary"," author":{"name","url","facebook_wall_name","image"","id_on_source"}},{"url","posted_on ","summary","author":{"name","url","facebook_wall_name","image","id_on_source"}}],"go ogleplus":[{{"title","url","posted_on","summary","author":{"name","url","image","id_on_so urce"}}],...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

As  observed,  five  distinctive  parts  were  identified.  The  first  section  is  a  summary  with  the global scores by source from which counts have been retrieved. Secondly, a brief description

of  the  scientific  paper  is  given  including  not  only  the  bibliographic  reference  but  also information such as the date when the paper was first included in the system or alternative links  to  the  paper.  The  third  part  of  the  file  offers  a  temporal  evolution  of  the  aggregated altmetric score for different time periods, along with comparisons with the journal's scores. Forth, a demographic display is shown by country and public type. This information is based on the Twitter account of users mentioning the paper. Finally, the last section includes a display with all the information and fields recorded in the system derived from each of the sources from which Altmetric.com retrieves the data.

## Description of sources collected by Altmetric.com

16 sources were identified in Altmetric.com. In table 2 we display each source including a brief description, the type of metric they measure and the data fields retrieved by Altmetric.com. Each record keeps a historical track of all metrics recorded since 2011 or since the inclusion of the  paper  in  the  system.  In  order  to  capture  this  data,  Altmetric.com  identifies  mentions through  link  recognition.  The  only  exception  is  done  with  blogs  and  news,  where  they  also employ a tracker mechanism using text-mining techniques in order to capture those mentions which do not link to the publication. Such techniques are employed only for English language sources.

As observed, the most common type of metrics collected are discussions and mentions (four sources for each metric), followed by readership counts (Mendeley, Connotea and Citeulike). Then,  other  similar  metrics  to  these  can  be  seen  such  as  videos,  reviews  or  'Question  and Answer'  discussion  threads.  As  observed,  with  the  exception  of  Research  Highlights,  which includes citation data retrieved from the highlights section of Nature magazine, all sources are of a 2.0 nature. Also, some of these sources may be biased towards certain fields. For instance, F1000  is  a post-publication  peer  review  service  of  Biomedical  and  Medicine  research ( Waltman;  Costas 2014).  Also,  Stack  Exchange  is  especially  used  by  researchers  from Computer and Natural Sciences.

| Source         | Description                        | Type of metrics   | Data elements                                                                                                                        |
|----------------|------------------------------------|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Blogs          | Manually-curated RSS list          | Discussion        | Blog title; post title; post URL; publication date and time; summary; author name; author URL; author description                    |
| News           | Manually-curated RSS list          | Discussion        | News title; news URL; publication date and time; license; summary; news media name; news media URL; news media id; news media image  |
| Reddit         | News provider                      | Discussion        | News title; reddit URL; publication date and time; author name; author URL; author id; followers; subreddit                          |
| Facebook       | Social network                     | Mentions          | Mention title; URL mention; publication date and time; summary; author name; author URL; Facebook wall name; author image; author id |
| Google Plus    | Social network                     | Mentions          | Mention title; URL mention; publication date and time; summary; author name; author URL; author image; author id                     |
| Pinterest      | Social network                     | Mentions          | Mention URL; mention image; publication date and time; summary; author name; pinboard                                                |
| Twitter        | Microblogging                      | Mentions          | URL; publication date and time; license; summary; author name; author image; number of followers, tweet id; type of public; country  |
| Stack Exchange | Question & Answer site             | Discussion        | Thread title; thread URL; publication date and time; summary; author id                                                              |
| Citeulike      | Social bookmarking                 | Readers           | Total count of bookmarks                                                                                                             |
| Connotea       | Social bookmarking (discontinued)  | Readers           | Total count of bookmarks                                                                                                             |
| Mendeley       | Social bookmarking                 | Readers           | Total count of bookmarks                                                                                                             |
| F1000          | Pospublication peer review service | Reviews           | Recommended in F1000; publication date (probably of the last update); type of recommendation                                         |
| YouTube        | Video sharing site                 | Video             | Video title; video URL; video image; publication date and time; license; summary; embed type; YouTube id; author name; author id     |

## Paper published in El profesional de la información , vol. 23, n.4, pp. 359-366 doi:10-3145/epi.2014.jul.03

Table 2. Summary of data elements provided by Altmetric.com by data sources

| Source              | Description                 | Type of metrics   | Data elements                                                                                                                                                                                |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| LinkedIn Groups     | Professional social network | Mentions          | Total unique users; unique users name; total posts; post title; summary; publication date and time; author name; author description; post URL; group logo URL; group name; group description |
| Research Highlights | Nature highlights           | Citations         | Highlight URL; date added to Altmetric.com; highlight title; total highlights; bibliographic description of highlight; first seen                                                            |
| Misc                | Others                      | Others            | This field includes data from different social media sources which are added on authors' request ( Adie , 2014)                                                                              |

With the exception of the Misc field which is devoted to other media sources not included in the original set of Altmetric.com, all are included when calculating the aggregated Altmetric score  of  each  paper.  Most  of  this  information  can  be  displayed  through  the  Altmetric.com bookmarklet  ( Figure  1 ).  However,  some  differences  have  been  noted  between  the  records retrieved  from  the  Altmetric  API  and  those  displayed  in  the  Altmetric  bookmarklet:  some indicators  and  data  elements  are  not  displayed  in  the  breakup  of  the  bookmarklet  (e.g.  all tweets and retweets) or discrepancies between the information provided between the sources (e.g. occasional errors in the Q&amp;A threads).

Figure 1. Example of data provided by the Altmetric.com bookmarklet

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0135v1-figure-55db379e-428a-4260-b3f2-788b5e4c85ca.jpg)

## Coverage of Altmetric.com for WoS publications with DOI in 2011-2013 4

From the total of publications in the original sample, only 19% were included in Altmetric.com reporting  some  type  of  altmetric  impact  ( Figure  2 ).  Twitter  is  the  source  providing  more altmetric data (87.1%) followed by Mendeley (64.8%). None of the other social media reaches values  higher  than  20%  of  the  total  share  of  papers  with  altmetric  indicators  associated, although Facebook reaches a total share of 19.9% of papers included in Altmetric.com.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0135v1-figure-7624d2e7-edfb-457d-8a40-ffa49d3dc448.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0135v1-figure-99ee3755-efec-4dad-ad7e-bdcf852f84e1.jpg)

WoS publications with DOI not included in Altmetric.com

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0135v1-figure-78fe664d-f046-4244-bceb-d740d38d7578.jpg)

WoS publications with DOl included in Altmetric.com

Figure 3. Coverage of WoS papers in Altmetric.com by social media for the period 2011-2103 4

In table  3 we  include  further  information  on  the  number  of  papers  including  metrics,  total counts of each metric and unique users for the five top sources (Twitter, Mendeley, Facebook, Citeulike and blogs). These sources are present in 95.5% of the total share of papers retrieved from Altmetric.com. Although Twitter is the social media with the most mentions, Mendeley includes a higher number of users bookmarking scientific papers. These two data sources are the  most  expanded  social  media  among  all  the  altmetric  sources  analyzed.  Indeed,  the presence  of  mentions  to  scientific  papers  from  social  media  such  as  Facebook,  Citeulike  or even  blogs,  never  reaches  5%  of  the  total  papers  with  DOI  indexed  in  the  Web  of  Science during the studied time period.

Table 3. Coverage of Altmetric.com by social media to papers indexed in Web of Science for the 20112013  time period 4

| Social media   | Papers   | Total counts   | Unique users   |   %Papers in WoS |
|----------------|----------|----------------|----------------|------------------|
| Twitter        | 449,493  | 1,819,194      | 1,621,396      |             16.1 |
| Mendeley       | 334,616  | 2,631,396      | 2,631,396      |             12   |
| Facebook       | 102,923  | 197,449        | 182,422        |              3.7 |
| Citeulike      | 65,799   | 130,756        | 130,756        |              2.4 |
| Blogs          | 50,529   | 84,927         | 75,946         |              1.8 |

## Discussion and concluding remarks

In  this  paper  we  analyzed  Altmetric.com  as  an  altmetric  data  provider  for  analyzing  the altmetric  impact  of  scientific  publications.  The  main  issue  this  type  of  sources  have  is  the difficulties that entail identifying mentions to scientific papers, similarly to the shortcomings found  when  using  webometric  techniques  ( Thelwall ,  2011).  Although  Altmetric.com  states that  they  do  serious  efforts  on  link  disambiguation  ( http://support.altmetric.com ),  there  is still  an  important  lack  of  research  on  the  exhaustiveness,  precision  and  correctness  of  the information retrieved by these tools (e.g. How many mentions is Altmetric.com missing from

the  covered  sources?).  This  is  specially  relevant  when  analyzing  the  retrieval  method  for identifying mentions to scientific papers in more problematic sources such as blogs or news media. Here, a tracker mechanism  based  on  text-mining  techniques is applied as a complement to the link recognition method. However, it is applied to a manually-curated list of resources, not being evident the criteria followed for selecting them ( http://www.altmetric.com/sources-blogs.php ). Also, this technique  is applied only for English  language  sources  while  for  non-English  sources  only  direct  links  to  publications  are considered ( http://www.altmetric.com/sources-news.php ), which inserts an important language  bias  that  needs  to  be  considered  when  studying  publications  from  different languages.

Conceptually  speaking,  a  very  serious  limitation  is related  to the  sources  covered  by Altmetric.com. The reasons why these and no other sources are covered is a relevant question. Particularly  in  an  environment  of  increasingly  growing  social  media  tools.  In  fact,  this shortcoming applies to all altmetric providers as they do not always empirically or conceptually justify their selected sources. As such, one could argue that if Facebook is included, why not the  Spanish Tuenti? If Twitter  is  covered,  why  not  Tumblr, or the  Spanish  'Menéame'  along with  Reddit?  In  the  same  line,  related  with  scientific  research  it  is  worth  mentioning  the omission of scientific social networks such as Academia.edu or ResearchGate which seem to be used by many researchers ( Mas-Bleda; Thelwall; Kousha; Aguillo ,  2014). In this sense, some improvements have been reported, and on April 7, 2014, Altmetric.com reported the inclusion of the Chinese Weibo as a new source ( Adie , 2014).

Probably, the reason for the selection of the current sources is more practical than conceptual (these  sources  are  popular,  have  public  APIs,  are  international,  etc.)  and  although  with limitations,  finding  and  scanning  mentions  to  research  outputs  across  them  is  relatively feasible.  However,  technical  issues  should  not  avoid  a  more  conceptual  and  theoretical discussion  on  what  should  be  covered  and  the  possible  limitations  or  biases  of  the  current sources, similarly to the analyses on coverage and limitations of other bibliometric databases such as the Web of Science, Scopus or Google Scholar (e.g. Jacso , 2009).

Our results show that from the 16 sources covered by Altmetric.com only 5 represent 95.5% of the total share of publications with altmetrics. This opens the question of the relevance of the sources  and  whether  the  smaller  ones  can  really  provide  a  meaningful  evidence  of  impact. Indeed  such  concentration  in  a  small  number  of  social  media  has  already  been  discussed elsewhere  ( Priem et  al. ,  2012; Cabezas-Clavijo;  Torres-Salinas ,  2010).  The  most  important sources  are  Twitter  and  Mendeley  ( Figure  2 ).  These  sources  are  the  ones  that  seem  more promising for determining the type of impact altmetric data provide, as they show  a higher density and therefore more reliable metrics could be extracted from them. As observed in our results, while Twitter seems to show data related to a larger number of publications, Mendeley shows higher figures ( Table 2 ),  including a larger number of counts and users. In this sense, this latter tool seems to have expanded much among the scientific community ( Haustein et al. , 2014). Surprisingly, Altmetric.com does not collect readership data (i.e., Mendeley data) unless other bibliometric indicators are collected ( Costas; Zohedi; Wouters , 2014).

## Paper published in El profesional de la información , vol. 23, n.4, pp. 359-366 doi:10-3145/epi.2014.jul.03

All  in  all,  Altmetric.com  is  indeed  a very  relevant open  tool  and  data  provider,  which  shows high quality and transparent data related to mentions in social media to scientific publications. The  recent  partnership  established  between  ImpactStory  (another  important  altmetric  tool) and Altmetric.com ( Piwowar ,  2014) is a clear recognition of the value of this tool. Our study highlights the richness of the data collected. This richness is reflected in the fact that not only metrics about the counts and mentions on the different social media tools are recorded, but also  data  elements  about  their  users  and  their  origin  or  the  dates  of  their  mentions,  for instance. As it stands, this data collection has two important positive implications. First, the fact  that  the  data  are  stored  and  recorded  permanently  allows  the  reproducibility  of  the results  and  retrospective  analysis,  thus  giving  a  solution  to  the  problem  of  volatility  of altmetric data ( Wouters; Costas ,  2012). Secondly, the abundance of data elements recorded opens the possibilities for further analyses that go beyond the simple counting of mentions. For example, the possibility of analyzing types of audience, the interests of these audiences, their relationships, etc. are new possibilities not yet explored.

Finally, our study shows that there are still important issues that need to be resolved to fully understand altmetric data. Our results indicate that more research is needed for understanding the methodologies for retrieving valid and reliable altmetric data. In the same line,  the  selection of social media sources must be rigorous and critical, attending to its use within the different communities and audiences and avoiding potential discipline or language biases.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Erik van Wijk from CWTS for helping in the retrieval of the data.  Euan  Adie  from  Altmetric.com  clarified  some  of  our  concerns  on  the  data.  Stefanie Haustein contributed with her comments which improved the final version of the manuscript. Nicolás Robinson-García is currently supported with a FPU grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad.

## Notes

- 1 http://impactstory.org.  Founded  by  Jason  Priem  and  Heather  Piwowar  in  2011,  it  was originally called Total-Impact.
- 2 http://www.plumanalytics.com/.  Founded  in  late  2011  by  Andrea  Michalek  and  Mike Buschman, it has recently been acquired by EBSCO Publishing.
- 3 http://www.altmetric.com/. Founded by Euan Audie in 2011, it has become one of the main altmetric providers.
- 4 The publication year 2013 is not complete. Only one third of the publications were uploaded in the system at that time. In any case, this is not problematic for our analysis as we are just doing  a  descriptive  analysis  of  the  presence  of  Altmetric.com  covered  mentions  across available scientific publications.
- 5 For more information about the JSON format the reader is referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON

## References

Adie, E. (2014). "Announcing Sina Weibo support". http://www.altmetric.com/blog/announcing-sina-weibo-support/

Adie, E. (2014) "Personal communication".

Almind, T.; Ingwersen, P. (1997). "Informetric analyses on the world wide web: Methodological  approaches  to  'webometrics'". Journal  of  Documentation, vol.  53,  n.  4,  pp. 404-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007205

Altmetric.com. "Knowledge Base". http://support.altmetric.com/knowledgebase

Bollen,  J.;  Van  de  Sompel,  H. (2006).  "Mapping  the  structure  of  science  through  usage". Scientometrics , vol. 69, n. 2, pp. 227-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0151-8

Cabezas-Clavijo, Á.; Torres-Salinas, D. (2010). "Los investigadores en la ciencia 2.0: El caso de PLOS One". El profesional de la información , vol. 19, n. 4, 431-434.

Costas, R.; Zahedi, Z.; Wouters, P. (2014). "Do 'altmetrics' correlate with citations? Extensive comparison  of  altmetric  indicators  with  citations  from  a  multidisciplinary  perspective". http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4321

Cronin,  B.;  Weaver,  S. (1995).  "The  praxis  of  acknowledgement:  From  bibliometrics  to Influmetrics". Revista  Española  de  Documentación  Científica, vol.  18,  n.  2,  pp.  172-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.1995.v18.i2.654

Davis, P. (2013). "Visualizing article performance - Altmetric searches for appropriate display". The Scholarly Kitchen . http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/30/visualizing-articleperformance-altmetrics-searches-for-appropriate-display/

Jacso, P. (2009). "Testing the Calculation of a Realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of  Science for F.W. Lancaster". Library Trends , vol. 56, n. 4, pp. 784-815.

Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Bar-Ilan, J.; Priem, J.; Shema, H.; Tersliener, J. (2014). "Coverage and adoption of altmetrics in the bibliometric community". Scientometrics . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3

Haustein, S.; Peters, I.; Sugimoto, C.; Thelwall, M.; Larivière, V. (2013). "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101

Kurz, M.J.; Bollen, J. (2010). "Usage bibliometrics". Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol. 44, pp. 1-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2010.1440440108

Li, X.; Thelwall, M. (2012). "F1000 , Mendeley and Traditional Bibliometric Indicators". In 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators , vol. 3, pp. 1-11. http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li\_F1000\_541.pdf

Li,  X.;  Thelwall,  M.;  Giustini,  D. (2012).  "Validating  online  reference  managers  for  scholarly impact measurement". Scientometrics, vol. 91, n. 2, pp. 461-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x

Mas-Bleda, A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Aguillo, I.F. (2014). "Successful researchers publicizing  research  online:  An  outlink  analysis  of  European  highly  cited  scientists'  personal websites". Journal of Documentation , vol. 70, n. 1, 148-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-122012-0156

Piwowar, H.A. (2013). "Altmetrics: Value all research products". Nature , vol. 493, n. 7431, 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/493159a

Piwowar, H.A. (2014). "Impactstory partners with Altmetric.com". ImpactStory blog . http://blog.impactstory.org/2014/01/28/altmetric\_com/

Priem, J.; Piwowar, H.A.; Hemminger, B.M. (2012). "Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact". http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745

Priem, J.; Taraborelli, D.; Groth, P.; Neylon, C. (2010). "Altmetrics: A manifestoaltmetrics.org". http://altmetrics.org/manifesto

Thelwall, M. (2011). "A comparison of link and URL citation counting". Aslib Proceedings , vol. 63, n. 4, 419-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111148985

Thelwall,  M.;  Haustein,  S.;  Larivière,  V.;  Sugimoto,  C. (2013).  "Do  Altmetrics  work?  Twitter and ten other social web services". PLoS ONE , vol. 8, n. 5, e64841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841

Torres, D.; Cabezas, Á.; Jiménez, E. (2013). "Altmetrics: New  indicators  for scientific communication in web 2.0". Comunicar , vol. 21, n. 41, pp. 53-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-05

Torres-Salinas,  D.;  Cabezas-Clavijo,  Á. (2013).  "Altmetrics:  no  todo  lo  que  se  puede  contar, cuenta". Anuario ThinkEPI , vol. 7, pp. 114-117.

Waltman, L.; Costas, R. (2014). "F1000 Recommendations as a Potential New Data Source for Research Evaluation : A Comparison With Citations". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , vol. 65, n. 3, 433-445.

Wouters, P.; Costas, R. (2012). "Users, narcissism and control - Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st Century". In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators , vol. 2, pp. 847-857. http://2012.sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Wouters\_Users\_847.pdf

Zahedi, Z.; Costas, R. ; Wouters, P. (in press). "How well developed are altmetrics? Cross disciplinary analysis of the presence of 'alternative metrics' in scientific publications". Scientometrics . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1264-0
Nicolás Robinson-García Daniel Torres-Salinas Zohreh Zahedi Rodrigo Costas
New data, new possibilities: Exploring the insides of Altmetric.com
This paper analyzes Altmetric.com, one of the most important altmetric data
providers currently used. We have analyzed a set of publications with DOI
number indexed in the Web of Science during the period 2011-2013 and collected
their data with the Altmetric API. 19% of the original set of papers was
retrieved from Altmetric.com including some altmetric data. We identified 16
different social media sources from which Altmetric.com retrieves data. However
five of them cover 95.5% of the total set. Twitter (87.1%) and Mendeley (64.8%)
have the highest coverage. We conclude that Altmetric.com is a transparent,
rich and accurate tool for altmetric data. Nevertheless, there are still
potential limitations on its exhaustiveness as well as on the selection of
social media sources that need further research.