**6. Conclusion**

In conclusion, altmetrics are currently still at an explorative stage and have far to go before they can make a regular contribution to quantitative science indicators of bibliometrics [29]. We show that there are still problems with the indicators and associated benchmarks. This is why the use of altmetrics in the context of science evaluations is not yet conceivable. Simultaneously, however, this insight could function as an incentive to enhance application maturity and to create the political boundary conditions for advancing further developments. Thanks to initial applications of altmetrics in the academic context, important experience is being gained. The scientific debate over the past few years has thus led to altmetrics achieving the validity and application maturity required for initial applications. However, they must be further developed for applications that are more thorough; particular indicators have to go beyond the level of individual publications and should also aggregate data on various levels. Additionally, the problems of altmetric indicators have to be addressed especially regarding coverage, representativeness, gaming, and validity.

altmetrics one would be able to have a look at, for example, mentions of scientific publications in documents, which influence politics or discussions on the application of scientific research in economics or companies. Generally, it would be worthwhile to identify the impact of scientific contributions on individual groups more easily, if one could associate contributions on

For scientists, the visibility of their publications is essential. The reputation resulting from the use by others of their scientific output in the form of ideas, statements, calculations, and findings is an essential part of the science system. Only the use of the generated output creates sustainable value for an individual scientist, be it in other scientific publications or in web-based communication, social media, or news pieces. Bibliometrics and altmetrics help scientists document the visibility of their work. Thus, the majority of the almost 700 scientists who participated in a survey on the RG platform stated that it is important to them to have a

Altmetrics permit scientists to record, regulate, and document their own visibility to a greater extent than was previously possible. Particularly for early-career scientists, there is thus a great opportunity to increase attention and reputation independently from the traditional publication system. In the longer term, altmetrics could assume the function of documenting

Academic libraries are usually where contacts can be found within a scientific institution for issues related to publication data and bibliometric processes/indicators. Librarians' clean data, compile publication profiles, and collect data within the scope of evaluations. They are thus specialists for handling data, particularly data related to publications, user statistics, and

This is where altmetrics represent a connecting element as they illuminate the use of publications in social media. Thus it is plausible for libraries to be directly involved whenever the issue of altmetrics is addressed at an institution. This makes sense because librarians are in contact with many areas of a scientific institution and offer advice on using information products. Roemer and Borchardt [26] identified this central role of libraries and summarize: "[…] librarians serve as natural leaders when it comes to altmetrics […]" [26]. They argue that this is due to the resources and data knowledge of libraries as well as their central position as

In conclusion, altmetrics are currently still at an explorative stage and have far to go before they can make a regular contribution to quantitative science indicators of bibliometrics [29].

the mediation of science to society and of making it more transparent.

contact partners for various target groups [27, 28].

social media platforms to particular fields of application.

**5.3. Reporting reputation**

**5.4. Support from libraries**

stock management.

**6. Conclusion**

high RG score.

130 Scientometrics

Interviews of the bibliometrics team at Forschungszentrum Jülich with experts in the field of bibliometrics and altmetrics confirm the above-mentioned findings [7]. These experts gave statements about the meaningfulness and application maturity of altmetrics. They stated that the significance of altmetrics indicators is located at a low to medium range only. The initial euphoria in the field, with the focus on the far-reaching potentials up to the measurement of the social impact and the performance evaluation of science, seems to have subsided.

There was a consensus between the experts that altmetrics is not an alternative to bibliometrics, but a new perspective on communication from and about science in social media: Perception and "popularity" are in the foreground. However, scientific quality or excellence is marginally represented by altmetrics, since it correlates only partially positively with perception. In principle, this contradicts bibliometrics, which is based on an inherent and peer review-based approach for the evaluation of science.

In contrast to the meaningfulness, the experts' assessments differ more strongly with regard to the maturity for application of altmetrics. This is sometimes due to the fact that expectations diverge: should these metrics be a purely quantitative indicator or do they provide the starting point for qualitative analyses? Furthermore, the areas of application are very broad and also include marketing activities that have so far been of secondary importance for research policy. Against this background, there is still unanimity that altmetrics can currently not be interpreted as a standalone and quantitative indicator. In particular, it was unanimously emphasized that altmetrics does not conform to a scientific database that is a prerequisite for the assessment of scientific work.

The appreciation of what role policymakers should play and how altmetrics can be used for research policy are divergent. However, in most of the interviews, the experts think that politicians should play an active role in shaping the implementation of altmetrics. Politicians could create a superordinate and binding framework for the application of altmetrics, for instance, by anchoring demands and formulating research questions.

In the long term, the increasing involvement of science in social media platforms will have a positive effect on the application of altmetrics. In addition, data providers are designing sources systematically and increasingly semantically. Current developments appear promising and point toward an expansion of source selection for English-language policy documents and news articles [15]. This would mean that in addition to the relevant news target groups, two complementary transmission channels of science into politics and industry can be covered.

[9] Franzen M. Digitale Resonanz: Neue Bewertungskulturen fordern die Wissenschaft her-

Altmetrics: State of the Art and a Look into the Future http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76874 133

[10] Butler JS, Kaye ID, Sebastian AS, Wagner SC, Morrissey PB, Schroeder GD, Kepler CK Vaccaro AR. The evolution of current research impact metrics: From bibliometrics to altmetrics? Clinical Spine Surgery. 2017;**30**:226-228. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000531

[11] Wouters P, Thelwall M, Kousha K, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rushforth A, Franssen T. The metric tide: Literature review (Supplementary report I to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management) [Internet]. Available from:

[12] Wilsdon JR, Bar-Ilan J, Frodeman R, Lex E, Peters I, Wouters P. Next-generation metrics: responsible metrics and evaluation for open science [Internet]. 2017. Available from:

[13] Bornmann L, Haunschild R. To what extent does the Leiden Manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics. Online Information Review. 2016;**40**:529-543. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-09-2015-0314

[14] Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden mani-

[16] Meier A, Tunger D. Investigating the transparency and influenceability of altmetrics using the example of the RG score and the ResearchGate platform. Working Paper

[17] Holmberg KJ. Altmetrics for Information Professionals: Past, Present and Future.

[18] Meyer MW, Gupta V. The performance paradox. Research in Organizational Behavior.

[19] Holbrook J, Barr K, Brown KW. We need negative metrics too. Nature. 2013;**497**:439.

[20] Haustein S, Costas R, Larivière V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS One. 2015;**10**:

[21] Hammarfelt B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities.

[23] Fraumann G, Zahedi Z, Costas R. What do we know about Altmetric.com sources? A study of the top 200 blogs and news sites mentioning scholarly output [Internet].

Scientometrics. 2014;**101**:1419-1430. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3

Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1887/48266 [Accessed: March 08, 2018]

[22] Thelwall M. A brief history of Altmetrics. Research Trends. 2014;**37**:3-4

festo for research metrics. Nature. 2015;**520**:429-431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a

http://www.dcscience.net/2015\_metrictideS1.pdf [Accessed March 08, 2018]

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/113919 [Accessed March 08, 2018]

[15] Altmetric.com. Personal interview on August 14-15, 2017

Amsterdam: Chandos Publishing; 2015

e0120495. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495

1994;**16**:309-369

DOI: 10.1038/497439a

aus. WZB Mitteilungen. 2017;**155**:30-33
