Alternative metrics are a measure of web-based scholarly interaction. They aim to measure such things as how often research is tweeted, blogged, downloaded or bookmarked.
Their development can be seen as a response to the impact of social networking on the research environment. Use alternative metrics to:
Alternative metrics can be used to compensate for some of the limitations of traditional research metrics as well as presenting a more well-rounded picture of research impact.
They should be used to supplement traditional metrics. Alternative measures can assist:
See the Altmetrics: a manifesto, posted on altmetrics.org, for further explanation about the development of this approach to measuring scholarly impact.
The following considerations may help you decide whether alternative metrics will meet your needs.
Potential benefits:
Speed: can accumulate more quickly than traditional metrics such as citations
Range: can be gathered for many types of research outputs, not just scholarly articles
Macro view: can give a fuller picture of research impact using many indicators, not just citations
Public impact: can measure impact outside the academic world, where people may use but not formally cite research
Sharing: If researchers get credit for a wider range of research outputs, such as data, it could motivate further sharing
Possible drawbacks:
Reliability: like any metric, there's a potential for gaming. Also, alternative metrics may indicate popularity with the public, but not necessarily quality research
Difficulty: can be difficult to collect, for example bloggers or tweeters may not use unique identifiers for articles
Relevance: there are many different metric providers available and it can be hard to determine which are the most relevant and worth taking time to collect
Acceptance: currently, many funders and institutions use traditional metrics to measure research impact
Context: use of online tools may differ by discipline, geographic region, and over time, making alternative metrics difficult to interpret