WileycowMost of the time, this Interactions series on the blog highlights the top of the attention rankings: the papers that went viral, the papers that were popular in a given month, etc. For this week’s Interactions, I decided to profile the altmetrics of 3 interesting papers from journals published by Wiley. (Earlier this week, there was an announcement from Wiley saying that they had begun a trial of article level metrics. Check out our news update for more information.) While the papers I picked weren’t necessarily the highest scoring ones in their respective journals, they each were associated with interesting altmetrics data that helped to illuminate some aspect of research impact.

 

“What, Another Nobel Prize in Chemistry to a Nonchemist?”
Published on 9 February 2012 in Angewandte Chemie

Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka won the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their significant contributions in the study of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), but they aren’t pure chemists in the traditional sense. Since one might be more inclined to classify Lefkowitz and Kobilka’s research under the disciplines of pharmacology or biochemistry, this Nobel Prize win pointed back to a controversy had been brewing for some time: many chemists have felt increasingly uneasy about the trend of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry being awarded to non-chemists. (See blog discussions about the Nobel Committee’s break with tradition here and here.) The blurred boundaries between the life and physical sciences were addressed in an interesting 2012 editorial written by Nobel prizewinner Roald Hoffmann (Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University), who urged his chemist colleagues not to be angry, but instead to “embrace the far and influential reach of chemistry”.

The editorial sparked animated conversations within the highly-active online chemistry community (see Altmetric details), and Hofmann’s sentiments were echoed by many on social media. On Twitter, 58% of those who tweeted about Hoffmann’s paper were scientists. One user with a PhD in chemistry tweeted about Hofmann’s paper, calling it a “smackdown”:

Roald Hoffmann’s smackdown on folks who kvetch about chemistry #nobelprize going to nonchemists: bit.ly/Ap7bGB #ohnohedidnt

— Carmen Drahl (@carmendrahl) February 15, 2012

The paper was shared by influential journal and magazine Twitter accounts such as @NatureChemistry@ChemistryWorld, and @angew_chem, ensuring that the intended audience was reached. Additionally, excellent and thoughtful blog posts by academics appeared on The Curious WavefunctionIn the Pipeline, Condensed Concepts, and Just Another Electron Pusher, prompting further discussion. Posts about the paper also appeared on Reddit. Taken together, all of this varied attention made this paper the 2nd highest scoring article in Angewandte Chemie that Altmetric has seen so far. But more importantly, the high amount of attention captured in the altmetrics data illustrated some ways in which a highly-articulate academic community have been using online tools to discuss important issues that affect their discipline.

 

“Whole genome sequencing identifies zoonotic transmission of MRSA isolates with the novel mecA homologue mecC” 
Published on 25 March 2013 in EMBO Molecular Medicine

In addition to helping to identify features of online communities, altmetrics can showcase the trajectories of science news stories and indicate which audiences were reached. This was particularly evident from the uptake of a paper published in EMBO Molecular Medicine. The revelation that methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can spread from livestock to humans sent chills down the spines of thousands of people after the publication of a study led by Mark Holmes (University of Cambridge). In the study, the researchers described how they sequenced the whole genomes of MRSA isolated from 2 infected Danish people and their livestock. They reported that all of the MRSA isolates from the humans and livestock expressed mecC, a gene variant of mecA which confers resistance to penicillin to S. aureus bacteria. Finally, they concluded that cross-species disease transmission (from livestock to humans) had occurred.

This paper received a lot of attention in a number of online communication channels, including Twitter, news outlets, and blogs (see Altmetric details). Notably, the paper made it to various mainstream news/blog sources, including Wired’s SuperbugMother Jones, and Chemistry Views. Twitter activity was also high: several individuals who are influential in the science blogosphere, including Scott Hensley (writer and editor for the NPR health news blog Shots) and Tara C. Smith (professor/ science blogger) tweeted about the paper. Overall, shares of the paper reached an upper bound of 112,581 combined followers. Interestingly, the Twitter demographics revealed that 44% of tweeters were members of the public, and 31% were scientists. Since superbugs in livestock are becoming a particularly strong fear for consumers in the United States, it wasn’t very surprising to see that the majority of tweeters (53%) were based there.

Here’s the paper (if you’re brave enough to read it…) Ah, how I’ve missed you Staph! onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/em…

— Rowena Fung (@RowenaFung) April 24, 2013

The altmetrics data here serve as a great indicator of rapid uptake of the paper. In this instance, the paper has already been cited once (as of 23rd May 2013), but the greater volume of online attention has certainly painted a fuller picture of immediate research uptake.

 

“Bioinspired Surfaces with Dynamic Topography for Active Control of Biofouling”
Published on 6 January 2013 in Advanced Materials

The last paper that I examined was a fascinating one from Xuanhe Zhao’s laboratory (Duke University) which concerns “bio-inspired dynamic surfaces”. These special surfaces, which were inspired by the sweeping motions of motile cilia, were created by applying a novel material that has the ability to repel bacteria that make up biofilms. It works like this: some kind of stimulus (e.g., electrical voltage, mechanical stretching, or air pressure) is applied to the material, deforming the surface and dislodging any biofilms that are attached. The practical applications are immense: notably, the material could be painted on the hulls of ships, then used to to stop “biofouling” by the easy removal of accumulated gunk (biofilms and barnacles).

For a paper with such useful applications (biofouling is a huge problem for mariners), how can one define the outcomes that would constitute impact? Even after more development and rigorous testing takes place, it may take years for the new technology to be adopted by shipbuilders. And so, for the time being, we should try to look for more immediate indicators of academic and online impact.

According to Web of Science, the paper has already been cited in 1 other article (as of 23rd May 2013). Since the paper was only published in January 2013, this might be a good sign that there’s been some academic uptake. With respect to online impact, social media shares contributed very little to this Advanced Materials paper’s Altmetric score; however, mentions in media outlets and blogs made up the bulk of attention (see Altmetric details). Even though the paper mentioned only once on social media, the paper still likely reached a large, specialist audience through research news/blog reports published on Materials Views,  Futurity.orgPhysics Buzz, and other sites.

 

Preparing for the future of scholarly communication

In summary, altmetrics can be excellent early indicators of research uptake in society. We’ve already seen examples in this Interaction post and others on this blog (e.g., doctors’ use of social media). Qualitative altmetrics data can provide insightful snapshots of highly-articulate communities of academic bloggers, vast networks of academics on social media, and examples of engaging science journalism in mainstream media. As more and more academics start to use online tools to communicate about their research and challenges faced in their careers (especially for women in science), altmetrics tools will be ready to meet the needs of the impact assessments of the future.

News RoundupUpdates from Altmetric

It’s been a hugely exciting couple of weeks for all of us at Altmetric. First of all, we’re delighted that John Wiley & Sons, Inc. will be running a trial of Altmetric for 6 months on a number of their journals. Authors and readers can now view Altmetric badges directly on Wiley journal articles (for example, this one), and then click through to article details pages (like this one). On the article details pages for the different journals undergoing the Altmetric trial, Wiley have provided links to surveys on article level metrics (e.g., this survey which concerns altmetrics on Advanced Materials). We encourage users to fill out one of these surveys to let Wiley know what works and what doesn’t.

AC

An example of an Altmetric article details page customised for Angewandte Chemie, a journal published by Wiley.

Another exciting development concerns the article level metrics pages at nature.com. Previously, these pages only used the Altmetric data feed alongside other metrics, but now the Altmetric donut and score are prominently displayed too. See an example here.

In other news, we became a member of ORCID, which is an organisation that manages a registry of unique researcher identifiers. This means that in the future, we’ll be able to better link research outputs in the Altmetric database (articles and datasets) to their respective authors through the use of ORCID IDs. We also began to collaborate with Peerage of Science, a scientific peer review service. Since Peerage of Science produces final evaluation scores for articles that are peer-reviewed, we’ll soon be able to display the evaluation scores on the corresponding Altmetric article details pages.

Lastly, we signed the The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which aims to put “science into the assessment of research”. In the Naturally Selected blog from Faculty of 1000, Iain H highlighted some key points about DORA in a new post called “What is impact?” In the coming months, we’ll be providing more information about what Altmetric will be doing to support DORA.

Altmetric is proud to support the SF Declaration on Research Assessment am.ascb.org/dora/index.php. Our goal this summer is to live up to it.

— Altmetric (@altmetric) May 16, 2013

 

From the community

Last week’s release of Will’s Altmetric WordPress plugin was met with lots of excitement on Twitter. Here’s the first use of the plugin that we’ve seen, as demonstrated in the Expert Edge blog:

Just tried the new @altmetric WordPress plugin on an old post about a cool #openaccess study: wp.me/p2AITr-xe. Other posts to follow!

— Expert Edge (@AJEexpertedge) May 16, 2013

SciTrends

A screenshot of Patrick Mineault’s website, SciTrends, which is powered by the Altmetric API.

Also worth mentioning is SciTrends (created by Patrick Mineault, a PhD student in neuroscience at McGill University), a website for scholarly reading that uses the Altmetric API to display trending scientific articles by category. The image on the left shows a screenshot of the site.

 

 

 

 

Save the date: Meeting up with Altmetric this summer

Recently, Altmetric has been making appearances at various excellent events: Euan was present at the STM Conference in Washington, and Jean attended the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Scientific Day and the British Science Association’s Science Communication Conference in London. (Check out MSF’s excellent summary of the Scientific Day, with a mention of our Interactions blog post.) This Wednesday 22nd May, Euan will be a panel speaker at The Now and Future of Data Publishing in Oxford.

Our summer is shaping up to be extremely jam-packed. In June, Euan will be attending the SSP Annual Meeting in San Francisco (5th-7th June), the OAI8 Workshop in Geneva (19th-21st June), followed by AAUP 2013 in Boston (20th-21st June). Meanwhile, Jean has been invited to attend this year’s SciFoo camp (21st-23rd June) at the Googleplex in Palo Alto, California. Later on, she’ll be at Open Repositories 2013 (sponsored by Altmetric) in Charlottetown, PEI, Canada (8th-12th July). She’ll also be delivering a seminar on the 16th of July at Dalhousie University’s Department of Pharmacology in Halifax, NS, Canada.

If you’re interested in meeting up with us at any of our upcoming events, please drop us a line on Twitter or at info@altmetric.com.

IcinghowerOur #AltmetricDonut mascot naming contest has now ended. Meet our new mascot, President Icinghower! The name (which is befitting of this great leader of the Altmetric donuts) was suggested by Nathan W. of London, who will soon be receiving a mini version of Icinghower. Congratulations!

President Icinghower has started tweeting from his new Twitter account, so do follow him as he explores the world of altmetrics.

Thanks so much to everyone who contributed a name and then voted in our poll!

MSF Scientific DayMédecins Sans Frontières Scientific Day

As a charitable organisation that contributes to research, how do you measure the impact of your publications? Being able to track societal and academic impact has been particularly important for Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a humanitarian aid organisation that provides medical care during international emergencies, conflicts, and disasters. Each year, MSF staff publish findings in peer-reviewed journals, and the scholarly papers are then deposited in the open-access MSF Field Research repository. Since MSF research has the potential to influence domains such as policy, clinical practice, and humanitarian advocacy, it’s necessary for the organisation to continually assess its own impact.

MSF research, which spans numerous health-related topics (including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis), takes centre stage each year during a conference called MSF Scientific DayAltmetric was invited to contribute a poster to the 2013 MSF Scientific Day, which took place last Friday at the Royal Society of Medicine in London. I attended the conference and presented an altmetrics research poster entitled “Using altmetrics and citation counts to assess the social and academic impact of Médecins Sans Frontières publications”. (The poster was authored by myself and Euan Adie, along with 2 members of the MSF Manson Unit, Louise Bishop and Sarah Venis.)

 

Assessing the social and academic impact of MSF publications

Altmetric and MSF collaborated on a poster that we presented at MSF Scientific Day 2013.

Altmetric presented a poster at MSF Scientific Day 2013.

The purpose of our poster was to describe the online and academic impacts of recent MSF publications (from July 2011 to December 2012) using altmetrics and citation counts. We retrieved altmetrics data (including the Altmetric score) and Web of Science citation counts for 155 articles in the MSF Field Research, and divided the articles into 2 categories: research (primary research articles) and other (editorials, perspectives, systematic reviews, etc.). Check out the detailed methodology and limitations of the study here.

These were our key observations:

  • Online attention tends to be low across all article types for MSF publications; nearly all of the attention comes from Twitter.
  • Non-research (“Other”) articles tend to be tweeted by a higher average number of people than research articles.
  • The number of articles mentioned online at least once increased in 2012 but was still only just over 50%.
  • Citations are slower to accrue, reaching 60% for 2011 research articles but only around 20% for 2012 equivalents.

Overall, MSF publications didn’t tend to receive very high Altmetric scores (the paper that received the most attention had a score of 44; see case #1 in the case studies section below). Twitter was by far the largest source of online attention, as any papers that had non-zero Altmetric scores were all mentioned at least once on Twitter. Surprisingly, there were very few mentions of MSF publications in other sources such as Facebook and blogs, and there were no mentions in mainstream news outlets.

We didn’t see much attention paid to MSF papers on Facebook, but this may have had something to do with the way that we usually quantify attention from this source. During MSF Scientific Day, I had an interesting chat with Ginny Barbour, the Medicine Editorial Director at PLOS, who told me that PLOS Article-Level Metrics had picked up quite a bit of Facebook attention surrounding MSF papers that were published in PLOS. However, PLOS’ method of tracking attention looks at Facebook “likes”, whereas Altmetric only counts unique posts with links to the article. The differences in methodology and approach to tracking likely account for the discrepancies in our data for the attention surrounding MSF papers on Facebook.

Based on our little study, we concluded that MSF could use the altmetrics data to craft new strategies for promoting their research online. We also felt that having mentions in a greater diversity of communication channels could be beneficial. We suggested that one simple method for increasing public awareness of the scholarly articles could be through existing blogging activities. Since MSF blogs by patients and staff (e.g., see the “TB & Me” blog) are already very influential, the inclusion of links to relevant publications could increase the reach of the scholarly works. Finally, we pointed out that if usage of online communication channels to talk about MSF publications increases, then altmetrics could certainly act as rapid indicators of research uptake within society, and could be used to measure impact more effectively in the short-term.

 

Altmetrics case studies – 3 MSF non-research publications

Getting HIV Treatment to the Most People
Published on 12 July 2012 in Science

This “Policy Forum” article on HIV treatment coverage was by far the most popular MSF publication in 2011-2012, and was mentioned on Twitter and in a BMJ blog post by an MSF USA staff member (see Altmetric details). After the article was published online on the 12th of July 2012, it garnered very few mentions on Twitter. However, 12 days later, an influential tweet sent by the Science Twitter account sharply boosted the article’s profile:

Ending the AIDS epidemic is now a realistic goal through the use of antiretroviral therapy scim.ag/NNdBFz

— Science Magazine (@sciencemagazine) July 24, 2012

The combination of having a concise article title and being promoted by a uncomplicated, powerful tweet likely contributed to the online success of this particular MSF article, which was largely tweeted by members of the public (62%). Despite the article’s popularity on Twitter, its academic uptake was slower. When I checked out the citation counts back in March, this article had only been cited once in the scholarly literature, which was about on par with the average number of citations for MSF non-research articles in 2012 (0.88).

 

A win-win solution?: A critical analysis of tiered pricing to improve access to medicines in developing countries
Published on 12 October 2011 in Globalization and Health

This article, a critical examination of the concept of “tiered pricing” of medicines, received attention mainly from Twitter, although it was also mentioned in a blog post on Scienceline (see Altmetric details). A closer examination of the people who tweeted about the article revealed that the article appeared to reach its intended target audience. Influential organisations that tweeted about the article included the Southern Africa Regional Programme on Access to Medicines (SARPAM), the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) Equity, SciDev.Net, as well as the Globalization and Health journal (the publisher). Several professionals also shared the article, including Amanda Glassman, Director of Global Health Policy and Senior Fellow of the Centre for Global Development.

This article performed well in terms of altmetrics, but what about its academic uptake? With 6 citations in the literature since publication, academic uptake of this article was actually much higher than the average for MSF non-research articles in 2011 (2.41).

 

Language in tuberculosis services: can we change to patient-centred terminology and stop the paradigm of blaming the patients? (see Altmetric details)
Published on 1 June 2012 in The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

This article took a strong stance against the detrimental and judgemental language of tuberculosis, empathising with patients by taking aim at the use of the words “defaulter”, “suspect”, and “control”. Perhaps it was this emphasis on language, but there was a particularly high number of “unique” tweets (i.e., tweets that didn’t just involve sharing the article title).

At last, #TB world may stop the blaming game and start using more ‘patient-centred’ terminology bit.ly/IXzCNm

— Tim France (@francetim) May 16, 2012

No more #TB suspects: changing the way we talk about #tuberculosis ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld…

— KNCV Tuberculosis F. (@kncvtbc) May 15, 2012

As with the Globalization and Health paper, this one also seemed to reach the audiences it was intended for. Organisations such as KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation (along with its Africa regional office) and TB Alliance tweeted about the article, as did health care practitioners, patient advocates, and so on. In addition to its rapid social uptake, this article has also been cited 4 times in the scholarly literature, greatly exceeding the average number of citations for MSF non-research articles in 2012 (0.88).

Thank you to Sarah Venis and Louise Bishop for inviting us to contribute a poster to MSF Scientific Day, and for guiding us through the submission process with helpful comments and advice.

Edit (20th May 2013): This post was mentioned on the MSF Scientific Day website as well as the snapshot of the day. Thanks!

Box o' donutsAttention WordPress bloggers! Our developer Will has just created an awesome and free Altmetric WordPress plugin that allows you to insert Altmetric donuts and badges into any blog post. Now you can easily insert a colourful donut into your text, just as it’s done on the Interactions posts of the Altmetric blog. For example, the WordPress plugin was recently used to display donuts in the April High Five.

 

Step 1: Manually install the plugin (.zip) into WordPress.

It’s extremely simple to get started. First, download the Altmetric WordPress plugin (.zip file), and go into Plugins → Add New on WordPress. You have the option to directly upload the plugin as a .zip file. (This blog post provides useful guidance in installing plugins manually.) Once the .zip file has been uploaded, navigate to the Plugins dashboard page and click on “Activate” for the “Altmetric embeds” plugin.

We’ve submitted the Altmetric plugin to WordPress, so in the future, it will be much easier to install straight from the WordPress Plugins Directory. We’ll let you know when our plugin is available there.

Last thing: to install future updates, you will need to deactivate and delete old versions of the plugin.

 

Step 2: Start embedding!

Let’s say you want to embed a donut that shows all the online attention surrounding this Nature news article. Find out its DOI first, and then, insert the following shortcode into your post:

[altmetric doi="10.1038/nature.2012.9872" float="right"]

This line can be pasted into the WordPress visual editor, so there’s no need to go poking further at the HTML. However, please make sure you paste the shortcode on a new line in order to preserve the formatting of text around the donut. Installation of the plugin automatically puts in the Javascript code that is required to display the donuts, so no additional code is required on your page.

You can also easily customise how you want the donut or badge to appear on your blog. Just modify the appropriate tags in the pasted shortcode. You can modify parameters such as positioning, popover style, detail display, and more. For more information, refer to the detailed documentation.

 

Step 3: Show off to the world.

We’d love to see how you’re using the donuts, so if you decide to install the plugin, send us a link to your blog via Twitter or e-mail. Also, if your blog post isn’t showing up when you click on the donut to check a paper’s article details, then please get in touch and we’ll double-check that we’re tracking your blog.

Donut mascot

Our mascot… who will soon no longer be nameless!

Last week, we asked you to help us name our new mascot by tweeting suggestions with #AltmetricDonut or e-mailing them in. We were delighted to receive 32 names in total. They were puns on “Altmetric”, donut puns, and a mix of male (62.5%) and female (37.5%) names.

Entries

The entries came flying in fast!

Today we narrowed the entries down to our favourite 4. (Unfortunately, we decided to disqualify “Aldo” seeing as it’s the name of one of our team members! It might be a suitable middle name, though…) Now it’s your turn to vote on your favourite name out of the chosen 4. The winning name will be announced on Friday.

 

Your choices are Riemann, President Icinghower, Donutello, and Iris. Click here to cast your vote!

donut contest vote

icanhazpdfA while ago, I wrote about the ways that people use Twitter to share scholarly articles but one thing we didn’t cover is the use of hashtags. Most tweets are sent to share the paper that is mentioned, and so it follows that most hashtags describe a personal reaction or highlight a notable aspect of the paper. However, a question from James Hardcastle inspired us at Altmetric to look into the use of one particular hashtag – #icanhazpdf (or “I Can Haz PDF”). This hashtag indicates the someone is requesting, rather than sharing, a paper – as such, it completely changes the intent of a tweet. Because #icanhazpdf tweets also contain links to papers we’ve been tracking them for a while as a side effect of our work for publishers and institutions.

#icanhazpdf originally arose as a more efficient way for science journalists and bloggers (who generally lack institutional access to journals) to quickly obtain PDF versions of scholarly articles. The process is simple: requesters tweet a link to the paywalled article along with the #icanhazpdf hashtag. Other users then respond to the request by retrieving the PDF through their own institutional access and e-mailing the file to the requester. Once the PDF has been received, the requester deletes his or her original tweet.

Rightly or wrongly using #icanhazpdf infringes copyright, but its practice is fiercely defended by many. As such, the hashtag has been the subject of many heated online debates surrounding the legality and morality of the practice (see comments in the previous link). I won’t be commenting on the legal or ethical issues of #icanhazpdf, but I would like to point out some interesting usage pattern data from the Altmetric database.

 

The usage of #icanhazpdf

I took a look at #icanhazpdf data from Twitter that Altmetric collected over 12 months, between May 2012 to April 2013 (see data on figshare). The graph below (Figure 1) is a timeline showing the number of #icanhazpdf tweets per week.

Figure 1

Figure 1. #icanhazpdf requests from May 2012 to April 2013

In this data set, the number of #icanhazpdf tweets peaked at 55 a week early this year (week 38, 16th January 2013), but was only 6 immediately after Christmas last year (week 35, 26th December 2012). Although this snapshot of activity is only over 12 months it seems as if the overall usage of the hashtag is slowly increasing. Over the time period examined, we saw a total of 1314 tweets tagged with #icanhazpdf. This came to about an average of 3.6 #icanhazpdf tweets per day, and 25.3 tweets per month.

What’s interesting here is the fact that there are actually not very many Twitter requests in the grand scheme of things. Compare 1314 #icanhazpdf tweets in 1 year to the roughly 10,000 tweets with links to papers (both closed- and open-access) that are seen by Altmetric per day.

 

The who and where of #icanhazpdf

Who is using #icanhazpdf? I took a random sample of 100 tweeters who had used the hashtag between May 2012 and April 2013 and categorised them by occupation/role by looking at their Twitter user profiles (see anonymised data on figshare). The categories were: Academic (including scientists, post-docs, and research fellows), Business (those affiliated with a commercial organisation), Communicator (including journalists and bloggers), Community, Librarian, Public, Student (undergraduates and graduates), Teacher, and Unknown (not listed or unclear from profile). The pie chart below (Figure 2) shows the breakdown of a sample of 100 tweeters according to occupation/role.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Occupation/role breakdown out of 100 users

The chart suggests that academics (35%), students (24%), and communicators (16%) use #icanhazpdf the most. This isn’t exactly surprising, since it’s been clear from online debates and conversations that it’s these groups of people that tend to defend the usage of #icanhazpdf in spite of copyright infringement issues. Interestingly, even though the hashtag was created with communicators in mind, it appears to have been embraced by a high number of academics and students. These groups presumably have access to certain journals already, and previously might have employed more closed means of obtaining articles (e.g., e-mailing the author or colleagues from other universities). However, the fact that the #icanhazpdf request goes out to complete strangers from all over the web is probably the most appealing factor, since casting a wider net would presumably increase the likelihood of catching the desired paper.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Geographic breakdown out of 100 users

Another interesting insight from the chart is that communities and members of the general public do not frequently request papers with #icanhazpdf. One might have expected that members of the public (notably patient communities), who would only be able to read open-access journals, would be more likely to use such a method to obtain paywalled papers. A possible explanation for the low usage of the hashtag is the lack of awareness amongst members of the public. The hashtag was used in the online science journalism community before it later spread to associated academics and their respective networks. Now, the usage of #icanhazpdf appears to be growing, which is perhaps due to an increase in awareness in different online communities. As such, it will be interesting to continue to follow the hashtag’s usage.

In some regions of the world institutions may have limited access to journals, despite publisher driven initiatives like HINARI. Might there be higher usage of #icanhazpdf in third-world countries? In order to find out where #icanhazpdf requesters were based, I categorised the same 100 tweeters based on the location they listed in their Twitter profiles. The bar chart on the right (Figure 3) shows the geographic breakdown within the sample. Nearly half of the #icanhazpdf requesters originated from the US, but a large number also came from Great Britain. The low levels of #icanhazpdf usage in other countries could be due to a variety of factors, including, again, lack of awareness of the hashtag.

 

The value of qualitative data

If tweets are tagged with #icanhazpdf, then what are the implications for altmetrics and (of particular interest to us) the Altmetric score? #icanhazpdf tweets could potentially complicate new metrics that characterise tweets too broadly – “sharing” tweets certainly signal something different to others that are effectively saying “I haven’t read it, but want to”.

Altmetric LolcatHowever, if you step away from reputation metrics and think in terms of attention instead, then the bias of #icanhazpdf doesn’t matter as much. The act of requesting a PDF still reflects attention (just as sharing a link to an abstract would). Attention is what the Altmetric score is meant to gauge: irrespective of whether the intent is to share or to receive, Altmetric treats an article mention of any kind as a signal of attention.

Since the average daily number of #icanhazpdf tweets is low (3.6 per day according to data from the past year), I would argue that the potential effects of #icanhazpdf tweets on altmetrics data isn’t a huge concern for the vast majority of papers. For qualitative assessments, it’s easy to view the Twitter conversations themselves within article details pages. As always, instead of relying on the numbers alone (e.g., “12 tweeters” for a single article) it’s important to review the qualitative data and adjust impressions about uptake and impact accordingly.

The effects of #icanhazpdf on altmetrics are arguably negligible at the present time, but its mere existence opens up interesting questions about research uptake. For example, is asking for a paper a more certain sign of uptake than sharing the article to people who lack access to the journal? It may just be a simple tag, but it certainly adds another layer of complexity to altmetrics.

A sincere thank-you goes to Bora Zivkovic, blogs editor for Scientific American, who shared many valuable insights with me over a phone conversation, and HT to James Hardcastle for the inspiration.

Over the weekend, we introduced a new, lovingly-handcrafted team member: this adorable little Altmetric donut. He or she still needs a name though, so we’re putting out a call to the public to help us out. Send us your name suggestions via Twitter (tweet @altmetric with the hashtag #AltmetricDonut) and e-mail (donut@altmetric.com). We’ll pick out our favourites soon, then set up a public poll so you can vote for the best name. The person who submits the winning name will win a mini version of the mascot!

Donut Contest

Good news for fans of iOS and altmetrics: iPhone and iPad users can now get Altmetric data on their devices using 2 cool (and free!) apps. Since mobile devices have been changing the way that many people choose to read scholarly papers, displaying the live altmetrics alongside the text is an interesting way to quickly give readers a feel for the social impact of an article.

 

Papership for iPhone and iPad

ShazinoPapership is a iPhone and iPad client for Mendeley that allows users to browse through their reference collections on their mobile devices. Created by the start-up Shazino, Papership uses the Altmetric API to display Altmetric donuts next to the article titles (see screenshot on the right). You can check out the news release or get the app for free from the iTunes App Store.

On the technical side, this app uses SZNAltmetric, an open source iOS software development kit created by Shazino for the Altmetric API. As an Objective-C client, SZNAltmetric is freely available for developers to build iOS applications using Altmetric data. Read more here.

 

Nature.com for iPad

NatureJournalsSince last October, nature.com has been displaying article level metrics pages powered by Altmetric. Now, these same article level metrics are available on the Nature.com iPad app, which includes free and subscription-based content for several journals published by the Nature Publishing Group. Altmetric’s social media, news, and blog data are viewable in the “Metrics” tabs for each article (see screenshot on the left).

Get the app for free from the iTunes App Store.

John SnowWhat kinds of research did people talk about in April?  In the past month, social media was abuzz with conversations about the life sciences, covering current trends as well as topics of a historical nature. Here is another Interactions monthly wrap-up featuring a selection of 5 new and popular articles in the Altmetric database. Data are accurate as of 30 April 2013.

 

1. “Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident as measured by extensive whole-body-counter surveys”
Published on 11 April in Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B

This study, carried out by Japanese researchers in the wake of the collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant, found that “internal exposure levels of [Fukushima] residents are much lower than estimated”. The paper became April’s highest scoring research article after it was shared by over 1000 users, who were mostly based in Japan (91% of tweeters were in Japan; see Altmetric details). The altmetrics for this particular paper echoed the trends I observed previously, once again indicating particularly widespread usage of social media by the general public to share scientific information related to the Fukushima disaster.

 

2. “An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists”
Published on 23 April in PLOS Biology

For some tweeters, sharing an article about the benefits of social media through social media felt a bit like “preaching to the choir”, but this new paper in PLOS Biology was still well-received as an excellent resource for scientifically-minded social media newbies. The comprehensive but concise paper covered a lot of ground, from existing blogging and social media services to the benefits of online professional networking.

Impressive data, making the case that researchers need to plug into social media RT @magda_skipper #PLOSBiology dx.plos.org/10.1371/journa… #hcsm

— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) April 24, 2013

It’s only been a week since publication, but the paper has already become the highest scoring article in PLOS Biology (see Altmetric details). While the paper has been extremely popular with scientists on Twitter (37% of tweeters), it has also been featured in a few science communication blogs, including one post written by a co-author of the paper. But even though the visibility of paper is extremely high on social media platforms, how can it effectively reach academics who aren’t already using these services? A simple suggestion was made by blogger Grant Jacobs:

“Leave a copy on the department coffee table for those less confident about use of social media in science, perhaps?”

 

3. “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid”
Published on 25 April 1953 in Nature

On the 25th April 2013, people from all over the world celebrated “DNA Day” to mark the anniversary of the discovery of DNA’s structure. In honour of DNA day, the landmark 1953 Nature paper in which Watson and Crick first proposed the structure of DNA was widely shared online using the hashtags #DNADay and #DNA60. Even though it was published 60 years ago, Watson and Crick’s paper went viral on the 25th of April 2013  (see Altmetric details), and attention was boosted by tweets such as this one from Nature senior editor Noah Gray (which has been re-tweeted over 800 times). Although this paper was shared to mark a special occasion, the celebrations helped to expose younger scientists to a paper that made history, while also giving biologists a valuable reminder of how far their field has progressed in the last 60 years.

 

4. “Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep”
Published on 4 April in Science

It seems that many popular neuroscience discoveries are sounding increasingly like stories out of science fiction. Take this one for instance: Japanese researchers recently published a paper in Science in which they demonstrated that the images seen while dreaming can be “decoded” using fMRI. This intriguing new study was mentioned in a diverse number of online sources, including Twitter, Facebook, Google+, news reports, and videos (see Altmetric details). In addition, the paper sparked the imagination of the blogosphere; the paper was mentioned in 13 different blog posts, all of which describe the study and its limitations in detail. Notable posts include one from Brain Box and the Naked Scientists (accompanied by a podcast).

 

5. “John Snow”
Published on 13 April in The Lancet

The last paper on this High Five list is an unusual one: it’s an apology from The Lancet about Dr. John Snow‘s obituary that was published in 1858. The original obituary, which was written by The Lancet‘s founding editor Thomas Wakley, posthumously snubbed Dr. Snow by skipping over his notable achievements. Notably, Dr. Snow had been responsible for identifying the source of water contamination (the Broad Street pump) that had led to an 1854 outbreak of cholera in London.

News about the apology spread after it was featured in Boing Boing. Tweeters were the most vocal about their appreciation for The Lancet‘s belated recognition of Dr. Snow, describing the act of apology as “wonderful”, “amazing”, and “brilliant” (see Altmetric details).

Never too late to admit that you’re wrong: Lancet issues new obituary of epistemologist John Snow over 150 yrs later thelancet.com/journals/lance…

— Rick Sanders (@RickSandersLaw) April 13, 2013

Love this: “an unduly prolonged period of reflection” – @thelancet apologises to John Snow after 155 years: thelancet.com/journals/lance…

— Simon Guerrier (@0tralala) April 13, 2013