**1. Introduction**

Similarly to many areas of private life and business, increasing numbers of processes, results, and discussions in science are shifting to the digital sphere. For example, the scientific output is shared and discussed in established social media such as Twitter and Facebook. In addition, platforms created specifically for scientists, such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate, or Mendeley [1, 2], are also growing in numbers. The "Science 2.0" [3] era is progressing and this simultaneously increases the demand for indicators capable of measuring web-based impact. A pure consideration of the citation numbers from classical bibliometrics appears outdated since they reflect only a limited picture of the impact of scientific publications [4].

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

To date, web-based impact in social media has been measured mainly by the number of downloads or clicks, or by using indicators created by the operators themselves, such as ResearchGate's (RG) score [5]. These web-based metrics get the umbrella term "alternative metrics," or "altmetrics" [6]. Collecting and analyzing altmetrics is gaining relevance, and not only in science. Political decision makers, too, are attaching corresponding importance to the issue. Thus, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), for example, has launched the first study evaluating the possibilities and limitations of using altmetrics for impact measurements [7]. Furthermore, BMBF has initiated a funding line for quantitative science research, in which the further investigation of altmetrics plays a central role.

**2.2. Tension between altmetrics and bibliometrics**

either/or selection.

management).

altmetrics.

**2.3. Use of altmetrics in science evaluations**

of altmetric scores or limits them by means of spammer lists [15].

Due to the fact that the base communities are the same, there is a certain tension between altmetrics and bibliometrics. Both (sub-)disciplines are intended to fulfill the same purpose, to generate a picture of scientific impact, but based on different influencing factors. Almost like a reflex, the two fields are often set in relation to each other, compared, or set up as an

Altmetrics: State of the Art and a Look into the Future http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76874 125

In contrast, within the community itself, there is a general consensus that both disciplines complement each other instead of one excluding the other [11]. Altmetrics are not intended to replace the peer review process or bibliometrics; rather, they should be viewed as a second opinion [10] and a "new perspective on communication by and about science in social media" [7]. A report by the expert group on altmetrics on behalf of the European commission also argues for classical bibliometrics that they "offer complementary approaches to evaluation" together with alternative metrics [12]. The expert group furthermore sees potentials for including a wider audience beyond the closed science system and for collecting information considerably faster than with conventional metrics. Furthermore, the idea of this approach is not limited to conventional scientific publication formats but offers the perspective of making data sources such as software and data sets accessible (e.g., as part of research data

The big difference between bibliometrics and altmetrics is the aspect that scientific publications are the traditional and indispensable main output of science. Thus, bibliometrics measures something that is at the center of the scientific reward system. The communication of science to society—that is, what is measured by altmetrics—is not part of the scientific reward system as yet. Creating incentives and expanding this reward system at this point would likely lead to increased use of social media by science and thus also strengthen

With regard to the practical application of altmetrics in research policy, science evaluations, and management, the scientific community is mostly skeptical. Bornmann and Haunschild [13] stress the problematic nature of the matter, namely that altmetrics should first confirm with the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics [14] before being applied on a greater scale. The central difficulties associated with altmetrics are presented, namely that there are currently no standardized indicators, that altmetric data are for the most part not accessible in a transparent and open manner, and that numbers can be manipulated through "gaming." Gaming is a term for the targeted manipulation of data for the purposes of achieving better altmetric values. Such gaming activities are negative side effects of an orientation along user statistics in evaluation practice [9]. However, in spite of the difficulty in consistently unambiguously distinguishing gaming from marketing, altmetrics service providers are trying to minimize such effects. For example, altmetric.com manually removes obvious manipulations

The present chapter gives an overview of the current stance of scientometric research on altmetrics. We show example metrics and discuss what conclusions can be drawn from them. It will become apparent that altmetrics do not meet the expectation of measuring scientific impact because the data are too heterogeneous, their interpretation has not yet been sufficiently clarified, and an indicator system with meaningful and reliable benchmarks does not yet exist. Furthermore, we will investigate what strategies scientific institutions can pursue in using altmetrics and provide information on prospects for success.
