We're a London based start-up that tracks the conversations around scholarly articles for publishers, funders & institutions.
The "Alternative" part is "alternative to only using citations", not "alternative to citations".
Not a drop in replacement for citation based analysis or media monitoring.
Instead it's complementary - helps you fill in some missing pieces of the impact puzzle.
Do scientists really talk about papers online?
We match ~ 35% of the articles searched for on Scopus.
Between June 14th and June 21st '12 Altmetric saw:
In context: avg. num new articles each fortnight in:
So a significant fraction shared but prob < half.
Looking in July 2011 at a random sample of 108k articles known to have been published in previous six months
54% (59k) have only one mention
89% (96k) have 5 or fewer mentions
0.3% (427) have 100+ mentions
Data collected between Sep 19th - 26th 2012
|Public Facebook posts||3,181||6.7%|
Growing: Unique articles mentioned, Twitter (+13%), Facebook & Pinterest (+60%)
Shrinking: Google+, blogs
468,000 tweeters collected Jul '11 - Jul '12 (lower bound)
(in context: there are 6 - 10 million scientists worldwide)
62,358 (13%) shared more than one paper
6,933 (1.4%) shared more then ten papers
Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) weights citations, given higher value in subjects where citations are less frequent.
Looked at all journals in PubMed Jan-Mar '12 with a SNIP in 2009, at least 10 papers with DOIs.
|Journal set||Size||Coverage %|
|SNIP >= 0.5||1,905||29.5%|
|OA, SNIP >= 0.5||106||45.3%|
Feel free to get in touch at email@example.com with questions / comments.