Alternative approaches to assessing scientific results


Alternative metrics (altmetrics) as a possible substitute for or addition to the traditional methods of assessing scientific results based on opinions and bibliometric indicators were first proposed in 2010. Since then, metric indicators, primarily those based on accounting for the use and discussion of scientific publications on the Internet, have, on the one hand, found influential advocates among scientists and publishers and, on the other, been met with resistance on the part of equally authoritative participants in the market of scientific publications. Altmetrics are already used actively by the largest publishers; in June 2014, the American National Information Standards Organization developed a draft altmetrics standard. This article presents a review of the existing indicators, describes their target audience, and considers leading companies that develop software products on altmetrics calculation for users of different categories. Altmetrics and citation-based indicators are compared.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    C. Tenopir and D. W. King, Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers (Special Libraries Association, Washington, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Lariviere, and C. R. Sugimoto, “Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services,” Plos One 8(5) (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    J. Priem, P. Groth, and D. Taraborelli, “The altmetrics collection,” Plos One 7(11) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    V. N. Gureyev and N. A. Mazov, “Detection of information requirements of researchers using bibliometric analyses to identify target journals,” Information Technology Libraries 32(4) (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    C. L. Liu, Y. Q. Xu, H. Wu, S. S. Chen, and J. J. Guo, “Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: Dimensions and structure,” J. Med. Internet Res. 15(11) (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    “Alternative metrics,” Nature Materials 11(11) (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    H. Donato, “Traditional and alternative metrics: The full story of impact,” Revista Portuguesa Pneumologia 20(1) (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    P. Sud and M. Thelwall, “Evaluating altmetrics,” Scientometrics 98(2) (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    D. Shotton, “CiTO, the citation typing ontology,” J. Biomed. Semantics 1(Suppl. 1), 6 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    J. Kelly, Altmetric rankings (2013). Cited July 15, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    T. Brody, S. Harnad, and L. Carr, “Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57(8) (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    E. Adie and W. Roe, “Altmetric: Enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics,” Learned Publishing 26(1) (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    P. Jump, Research Intelligence-Alt-metrics: fairer, faster impact data? Cited July 15, 2014.

  14. 14.

    C. Neylon and S. Wu, “Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact,” Plos Biology 7(11) (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    P. O. Seglen, “Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research,” British Med. J. 314(7079) (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    N. A. Mazov and V. N. Gureev, “The role of unique identifiers in bibliographic information systems,” Sci. Tech. Inf. Processing 41(3) (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    F. Galligan and S. Dyas-Correia, “Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure,” Serials Rev. 39(1) (2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolai Alekseevich Mazov.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © N.A. Mazov, V.N. Gureev, 2015, published in Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, 2015, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 115–122.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mazov, N.A., Gureev, V.N. Alternative approaches to assessing scientific results. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 85, 26–32 (2015).

Download citation


  • Impact Factor
  • Scientific Result
  • Publica Tions
  • Alternative Metrics
  • Develop Software Product