Ten days ago Information Standards Quarterly (ISQ) published a special issue on altmetrics. I was the guest editor for the five altmetrics articles, and in the editorial that I titled Altmetrics have come of age I argued that
We no longer need to talk about whether it is possible to reliably collect altmetrics, or whether this is valuable information that can complement citations and usage statistics.
Unfortunately Wikipedia - which is of course an important source of altmetrics information and was also mentioned in the editorial - doesn’t think so. When you try to go to the Altmetrics page on the English Wikipedia, you get this:
In other words, you are redirected to a short section on the Impact Factor page. I would go and start an altmetrics (and article-level metrics) page, but with my professional involvement in altmetrics it is difficult to write from a neutral point of view, one of the core Wikipedia policies.
What Can Article-Level Metrics Do for You?
Article-level metrics (ALMs) provide a wide range of metrics about the uptake of an individual journal article by the scientific community after publication. They include citations, usage statistics, discussions in online comments and social media,...
PLoS Article-Level Metrics: Interview with Martin Fenner
This blog occasionally does interviews with people providing interesting tools for scholars. These interviews have always been among my favorite blog posts. This now is obviously an interview with myself,...
ScienceCard named Finalist in Mendeley/PLoS API Binary Battle
I’m very proud to report that ScienceCard last week has been named finalist in the Mendeley/PLoS API Binary Battle. Not bad for a project that started only two months ago in a hackathon following the Science Online London conference and is done in my spare time....