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
| Service | Mentions | As % |
| Twitter posts | 43,542 | 91.7% |
| Public Facebook posts | 3,181 | 6.7% |
| Reddit posts | 154 | 0.3% |
| Pinterest posts | 133 | 0.2% |
| Blog posts | 430 | 0.9% |
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 % |
| Mean | ||
| All | 3,705 | 21.9% |
| SNIP >= 0.5 | 1,905 | 29.5% |
| All OA | 349 | 21.6% |
| OA, SNIP >= 0.5 | 106 | 45.3% |
Feel free to get in touch at euan@altmetric.com with questions / comments.