Altmetric Blog

Archive: November 2014

Identifying the right literature to spend time reading has long been a challenge for researchers – often it is driven by table of contents alerts sent straight to an inbox, or a recommendation from a superior or colleague. Libraries have invested in systems to make the most relevant content easily accessible and above all, easily discoverable. But a search in a discovery platform can draw hundreds of results, and it is sometimes difficult just from those to make an informed decision about what might be worth digging further in to. This is where altmetrics might … Read More
Articles and other research outputs don’t always get attention for the reasons we might first assume. There’s a reason you shouldn’t ever rely on numbers alone… This was demonstrated in spectacular form once again this week when the Twittersphere jumped on a recent article that contained a rather unfortunate error – an offhand author comment asking “should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here”? That paper w/ that unfortunate remark abt the “crappy Gabor paper” left in? Its #altmetrics is through the roof! LOL! pic.twitter.com/5fREXP2HGw — Tommy Leung (@The_Episiarch) November 11, 2014 The article got … Read More
One of the things that appealed to me when I joined Altmetric recently was the distinctive visual ‘donut’ that illustrates the various different sources of attention that an article has attracted. Introducing Altmetric’s new bar visualisation. I really like how the donut’s fixed number of slices forces the eye to appreciate the approximate proportions of an article’s sources. Any visualisation that is more precise, such as a more conventional pie chart, tempts us to look too closely at proportions of one source against another, as well as potentially allowing one particular source which has generated loads of mentions to … Read More
You might have seen the article published recently in Nature which look at the top 100 most highly cited papers from 1900 onwards, based on data from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Database. The article highlighted that it is (perhaps unsurprisingly) much older articles that have accrued the majority of citations to date and therefore dominate the list – with more recent breakthroughs and nobel-prize winning advances struggling to compete with the 12,119 citations it would take to rank in the top 100. So we were curious to see what other kind of attention these articles might have … Read More