Chapter 1 Introduction to Altmetrics n today’s modern era of analytics, electronics, and scholarly competition, metrics are an important part Iof the everyday lives and workflows of people across the higher education community. From researchers applying for federal grants to faculty members pre- paring their tenure and promotion files, metrics have become an increasingly visible part of how academ- ics and administrators are expected, if not required, to talk about impact and value. However, just as what Figure 1.1 it means to do research has changed drastically over The first recorded use of the term altmetrics, in a Tweet the last fifteen years with advances in information posted by Jason Priem on September 28, 2011. technology, so have the qualifications for what con- stitutes a useful impact metric begun to evolve and pertaining to the future of this quickly changing field expand with changes in scholarly communication. Of of research and practice. these expansions, the most significant is arguably the We begin this first chapter with a review of the development of altmetrics, which constitutes a strictly recent origins of altmetrics, as well as a look at how twenty-first-century approach to impact measurement the approach of altmetrics relates to more established ReportsLibrary Technology that relies heavily on the connection between schol- practices for measuring scholarly impact, such as cita- arly activity and the opportunities afforded by the tion-based bibliometrics. Social Web. In this Library Technology Report, we introduce the most important features of the current altmet- Defining Altmetrics rics movement, from its origins in scholarly commu- nication and citation-based bibliometrics to its recent Altmetrics as a term was coined in September 2010 by flourishing in partnership with academic innovators Jason Priem, a doctoral student at UNC-Chapel Hill’s and a growing population of academic librarians. School of Information and Library Science (see figure alatechsource.org Within each chapter, we highlight key players and 1.1).1 A firm believer in the power of online scholarly issues that have arisen in combination with the alt- tools to help researchers filter information and iden- metrics movement, including the uncertainties and tify relevant sources, Priem was interested in iden- opportunities that have alternatively stymied and tifying a set of metrics that could describe relation- encouraged its acceptance in certain higher educa- ships between the social aspects of the web and the tion circles. By providing the facts surrounding the spread of scholarship online. With few terms avail- 2015 July growth and development of altmetrics, particularly as able to encompass this diverse-yet-specific group of they overlap with the concerns of academic libraries, analytics, Priem decided to popularize one of his own we seek to provide today’s library leaders with the making. The result, altmetrics, is a shortened version necessary context to make decisions and take actions of the phrase alternative metrics, presumably because 5 Altmetrics Robin Chin Roemer and Rachel Borchardt Figure 1.2 The Altmetrics Manifesto, authored by Jason Priem, Dario Taraborelli, Paul Groth, and Cameron Neylon, provided the first comprehensive online description of altmetrics. http:// altmetrics.org/manifesto. it offered scholars an alternative to metrics derived Figure 1.3 from a purely print-based understanding of scholarly Screenshot of the LiveJournal home page, circa 2000. research and communication. (Source: Internet Archive) For practical purposes, the best-known definition of altmetrics comes from Altmetric.org, a website set include shorter updates, media, and more. By 2004, up by Priem and three of his colleagues in October the year of the first Web 2.0 Conference, the Social 2010 in order to promote their more detailed Altmet- Web had officially blossomed from a possible fad into rics Manifesto (see figure 1.2). On it, the altmetrics a real and significant part of the Internet. approach is described as “the creation and study of The technological changes of the late 1990s and new metrics based on the Social Web for analyzing, early-to-mid 2000s were also important from the per- and informing scholarship.”2 However, in the years spective of academia, although not entirely in the following the release of this resource, new questions same ways. For instance, for the first time, research- have arisen about exactly what this definition of alt- ers at colleges and universities were beginning to see metrics encompasses, and what it actually means to the widespread availability of scholarship online. “Big calculate altmetrics in different scholarly contexts. We Deals” made by librarians with certain scholarly pub- will discuss these issues later, in the third chapter of lishers resulted in new electronic access to thousands this report. of articles, often from journals previously outside of In order to better understand the early history libraries’ print collections. This sudden spike in the of altmetrics, we look now at a few of the more sig- range and availability of electronic scholarly material nificant events leading up to its development, begin- quickly altered the ways that users searched for and ning with the changes in information technology and found academic information. In response, most aca- scholarly communication at work toward the end of demic libraries continued to pursue bundled subscrip- the twentieth century. tions to scholarly e-journals. However, at the start of July 2015 July the twenty-first century, mounting evidence began to suggest that such deals do little to solve the long-term Development of Altmetrics problem of increasing costs for serials access. In December 2002, at the height of the serials cri- As the definition of altmetrics makes clear, one of the sis, the attendees of a small conference in Budapest first prerequisites for its development was the growth convened by the Open Society Institute released a alatechsource.org of the Social Web, or the part of the Internet focused short public statement, in which they proposed using on social relationships and activities. the Internet to make research literature free for any- Between the late 1990s and early 2000s, the tex- one to use “for any … lawful purpose, without finan- ture of the Internet underwent a dramatic shift as cial, legal, or technical barriers other than those innovative toolmakers began offering users more and inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.”3 more ways to create and share original, personal con- Later known as the Budapest Open Access Initiative, tent on the web. Free online journaling platforms, this powerful statement became a founding document such as LiveJournal (figure 1.3), led to an explosion of the open-access (OA) movement, for which many in the number of blogs and bloggers, while early libraries and librarians have since become champions. Library Technology ReportsLibrary Technology social networking sites such as MySpace and Friend- While the history of the open-access movement is ster broadened the scope of online social sharing to too rich a topic to go into here, it is notable that its 6 Altmetrics Robin Chin Roemer and Rachel Borchardt Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 The Public Library of Science “Open Access” webpage The home page of arXiv.org (http://arxiv.org). ArXiv is an (www.plos.org/open-access). PLOS is committed to open e-print service owned and operated by Cornell University. access and applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC- It specializes in publications from quantitative fields such as BY) license to all the content it publishes. physics, mathematics, and computer science. invention helped set the stage for the later develop- culture to make the idea of a set of web-based metrics ment of altmetrics. By emphasizing the power of the for measuring impact a tempting proposition—not Internet as a tool for research, the benefits of rapid just for scholars, but for publishers, toolmakers, and research discovery for purposes of innovation, and librarians, too. However, the “alternative” positioning the positive consequences of openly sharing scholarly of altmetrics, specifically in relation to citation-based content with the public, OA helped encourage deeper bibliometrics, created an immediate set of obstacles connection between libraries, scholars, and makers of for the movement, obstacles that the field of altmet- alternative platforms for scholarly publishing and net- rics has had to work hard to overcome ever since. For working. Evidence of this can be seen in the type of this reason, we take a moment here to briefly examine online scholarly venues that began to grow and thrive the relationship between bibliometrics and altmetrics, in the early 2000s following the articulation of open including how each has been received by proponents access, including the Public Library of Science (fig- of the other over time. ure 1.4) and arXiv (figure 1.5), both of which endorse OA values while tracking interactions between objects and users online—that is, alternative impact metrics. From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics Perhaps it is for the combination of these various reasons that the mid-2000s saw the first true flour- In contrast to altmetrics, which has emerged as a fully ishing of both Web 2.0 and “open values” across the articulated idea only within the last five years, bib- spheres of both academia and the general public. The liometrics has been around as a formal concept since year 2004, for instance,