A critical review on altmetrics: can we measure the social impact factor?

Amplifying Research: The Potential for Podcasts to Boost Radiology Journal Article Exposure

Background Podcasts have become an increasingly popular method of communicating information in medicine, including in radiology. However, the effect of podcasts on the reach of journal articles remains unclear. Purpose To evaluate the influence of Radiology podcasts on the performance metrics, including downloads, citations, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), of Radiology articles. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study. All articles published in the print version of Radiology from January 2021 to December 2022 were reviewed; editorials and case reports were excluded. Articles featured on Radiology podcasts were included in the podcast group. Articles published within the same journal issue and category were the nonpodcast group. Downloads, Google Scholar citations, Dimensions citations, and AAS metrics were recorded. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare medians and evaluate differences between older and more recently published articles. Results The podcast group, composed of 88 articles, exhibited significantly higher median values for downloads (PG, 4521.0; nonpodcast group, 2123.0; P < .001), Google Scholar citations (podcast group, 14.5; nonpodcast group, 10.0; P = .01), Dimensions citations (podcast group, 12.0; nonpodcast group, 9.0; P = .01), and AAS (podcast group, 43.0; nonpodcast group, 10.0; P < .001) compared with the nonpodcast group of 378 articles. Within both groups, articles published in the earlier nonpodcast group (January to June 2021) had higher downloads (podcast group, P = .08; nonpodcast group, P < .001), Google Scholar citations (podcast group and nonpodcast group, P < .001), and Dimension citations (podcast group and nonpodcast group, P < .001) than articles from the later period (July to December 2022). AAS markedly increased in recent podcast articles (P = .03), but AAS for nonpodcast articles significantly decreased over time (P = .01). Conclusion Radiology articles featured on the Radiology podcast had greater median metrics, including downloads, Google Scholar citations, Dimensions citations, and AAS, compared with nonpodcast articles, suggesting that podcasts can be an effective method of disseminating and amplifying research within the field of radiology. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Chu and Nicola in this issue.

Five decades of research on immediate implant therapy: A modern bibliometric network analysis via Altmetric and level of evidence mapping

AIM

To conduct a bibliometric network analysis to explore the research landscape of immediate implant placement (IIP) and provide insights into its trends and contributors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Scopus database was utilized as the bibliographic source, and a search strategy was implemented to identify relevant research articles. Various bibliometric parameters were extracted, including publication year, journal, authors, citations, and funding. The analysis involved examining authorship patterns, international collaborations, level of evidence, Altmetric data, and funding analysis.

RESULTS

We identified a steady annual growth rate of 6.49% in IIP research. The top three countries contributing to research output were the USA, Italy, and China. Prolific authors were identified based on publication and citation metrics. International collaborations among different countries were observed. The level of evidence analysis revealed that over 30% of the articles fell into higher levels of evidence (levels 1 and 2). Altmetric data analysis indicated no significant correlations between citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and conversely a significant association with Mendeley readers count. Funding and open access did not significantly impact the bibliometric indices of the papers.

CONCLUSIONS

The focus of research on IIP has been evolving as indicated by an exponential growth rate in this study. Only approximately 16% of the articles fit into level 1 evidence, therefore, emphasizing on higher quality level research study shortage in this field. Modern indices can be used as new bibliometric indicators as they also cover social media and online attention scores.

Online Visibility and Scientific Relevance of Strabismus Research: Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Quality and accuracy of online scientific data are crucial, given that the internet and social media serve nowadays as primary sources of medical knowledge.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the relationship between scientific relevance and online visibility of strabismus research to answer the following questions: (1) Are the most popular strabismus papers scientifically relevant? (2) Are the most high-impact strabismus studies shared enough online?

METHODS

The Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used as a proxy for online visibility, whereas citations and the journal's impact factor (IF) served as a metric for scientific relevance. Using "strabismus" as a keyword, 100 papers with the highest AAS and 100 papers with the highest number of citations were identified. Statistical analyses, including the Spearman rank test, linear regression, and factor analysis, were performed to assess the relationship between AAS, citations, a journal's IF, and mentions across 18 individual Web 2.0 platforms.

RESULTS

A weak, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between normalized AAS and normalized citations (P<.001; r=0.27) for papers with high visibility. Only Twitter mentions and Mendeley readers correlated significantly with normalized citations (P=.02 and P<.001, respectively) and IF (P=.04 and P=.009, respectively), with Twitter being the strongest significant predictor of citation numbers (r=0.53). For high-impact papers, no correlation was found between normalized citations and normalized AAS (P=.12) or the IF of the journal (P=.55).

CONCLUSIONS

While clinical relevance influences online attention, most high-impact research related to strabismus is not sufficiently shared on the web. Therefore, researchers should make a greater effort to share high-impact papers related to strabismus on online media platforms to improve accessibility and quality of evidence-based knowledge for patients.

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article.

METHODS

Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection.

RESULTS

Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

The Top Ranked 101 Articles in Pediatric Surgical Journals from an Altmetric Perspective

INTRODUCTION

 In the era of scientific digitalization, online media platforms gain increasing popularity to accomplish research output awareness. The Altmetric Attention Score AAS weights these online mentions based on a privy algorithm. We aimed to characterize the top 100 articles with the highest (AAS) published in pediatric surgery journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Publications from six core pediatric surgery journals were retrieved from www.altmetric.com in January 2023 and ranked by their AAS. The top 101 publications were analyzed for their bibliometric measures, study design, and quality as well as online media mentions.

RESULTS

 The top 101 AAS articles were published between 1974 and 2022, preferentially from the United States (64%) and mainly in Journal of Pediatric Surgery (73%), followed by Journal of Pediatric Surgery Case Reports, Pediatric Surgery International, Seminars in Pediatric Surgery, and European Journal of Pediatric Surgery. Their AAS ranged between 21 and 389 (median: 33), with Twitter/X being mostly responsible for online mentions (n = 2,189; 75%). The number of citations in peer-reviewed journals ranged between 0 and 358 (median: 16) and did not correlate to AAS. Retrospective study design (33%) with low evidence level IV (43%) dominated.

CONCLUSION

 The Journal of Pediatric Surgery is the main source of high-profile AAS publications in pediatric surgery. The altmetric popularity of articles is predominantly achieved by their propagation via X, irrespective of the study quality and recognition in the scientific community. Thus, active "twitterism" may play the key role to reach high AAS scores.

Comparative assessment of scientific reach and utilization of the International Association of Dental Traumatology 2020 guidelines: An altmetric and citation analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

The updated version of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines was published online in May 2020 in the form of four papers. They are extensively used in dental trauma education in textbooks, undergraduate and postgraduate programs, and clinical workshops. Hence, this study aimed to assess the impact, global scientific reach, and utilization of these guidelines through altmetric and citation analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The protocol was prepared after an expert group discussion. Dimensions database was used to derive the altmetric and citation data on April 10th, 2023. The data was extracted by using a self-designed pre-piloted form by two authors independently. The citing articles were further categorized into the type of study and the domains and subdomains of dental traumatology. The VOSviewer program was utilized to explore the correlation between the subdomains and the overlap of citations was assessed by creating a citation matrix.

RESULTS

A total of 552 citations had been collectively received by the four papers. The highest was seen for the guidelines for fracture and luxation in permanent teeth (FL), avulsion in permanent teeth (AV), general introduction (GI), and primary teeth (PT). Dental Traumatology had the maximum number of citing papers for each guideline. They were from 52 countries with English being the commonest language. Overall, the maximum number of citations had been received in narrative reviews (n = 104) and the majority of cited papers were categorized in the therapeutic domains. The most common subdomain for the papers that cited GI, FL, and AV was "treatment protocols in permanent teeth", while it was "awareness of prevention and emergency management of traumatic dental injuries" for the papers that had cited PT.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis highlighted that the IADT 2020 guidelines are globally popular resources, which are widely used by the researchers across specialities and are intended towards clinical application.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews.

METHODS

Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer.

RESULTS

Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

Altmetric Analysis of Dermatology Manuscript Dissemination During the COVID-19 Era: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Alternative bibliometrics or altmetrics, is a measure of an academic article's impact on social media outlets, which is quantified by the Altmetric Attention score (AAS). Given a lack of data for altmetric trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a comprehensive, multivariable analysis of top dermatology manuscripts published during this time period.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess (1) the relationship between traditional bibiliometrics and Altmetrics and (2) factors associated with high AAS.

METHODS

All abstracted articles published in the top-5 (ranked by SCImago Journal Rankings) peer-reviewed dermatology journals published in 2021 were included in our study. We collected AAS as the dependent variable and categorical predictor variables included journal title, whether a conflict of interest existed, open access status, whether the article was related to COVID-19 or skin-of-color research, and the type of research (eg, clinical, basic science, review, etc). Numerical predictor variables consisted of the impact factor of journal, total citations, and number of authors. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS

The relationship between AAS and citation number was significant by multivariable analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic (P<.001). Numerous factors, including studies related to COVID-19, whether the article was open access, title of the journal, and journal impact factor were also independently related to higher AAS (P<.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results validate the use of altmetrics as a complement to traditional bibliometrics, especially in times of widespread scientific interest. Despite existing in a complex realm of bibliometrics, there are also discernable patterns associated with higher AAS. This is especially relevant in the era of growing technologic importance and utility to assess the impact of scientific works within the general public.

Twitter Gynecologic Surgery Journal Club: Impact on Citation Scores and Social Media Attention

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of a Twitter-based gynecologic surgery journal club of articles published in the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (JMIG) on their social media attention and citation scores.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

N/A.

PATIENTS

N/A.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison of citation and social media attention scores was conducted for all articles presented in the JMIG Twitter Journal Club (#JMIGjc), a monthly scientific discussion on Twitter of JMIG selected articles, between March 2018 and September 2021 (group A), with 2 matched control groups of other JMIG articles: group B, articles mentioned on social media but not promoted in any JMIG social media account, and group C, articles with no social media mentions and not presented in #JMIGjc. Matching was performed for publication year, design, and topic in a 1:1:1 ratio. Citation metrics included number of citations per year (CPY) and relative citation ratio (RCR). Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was used to measure social media attention. This score tracks research articles' online activity from different sources such as social media platforms, blogs, and websites. We further compared group A with all JMIG articles published during the same period (group D).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine articles were presented in the #JMIGjc (group A) and were matched to 39 articles in groups B and C. Median AAS was higher in group A than groups B and C (10.00 vs 3.00 vs 0, respectively, p <.001). CPY and RCR were similar among groups. Median AAS was higher in group A than group D (10.00 vs 1.00, p <.001), as were median CPY and RCR (3.00 vs 1.67, p = .001; 1.37 vs 0.89, p = .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Although citation metrics were similar among groups, #JMIGjc articles had higher social media attention metrics than matched controls. Compared with all publications within the same journal, #JMIGjc articles resulted in higher citation metrics.

Bibliometric and altmetric analysis of research relating to antiphospholipid syndrome based on VOS viewer (2011-2021)

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent vascular thrombosis and pregnancy losses in the presence of persistently positive antiphospholipid antibodies. Bibliometric analysis and altmetric analysis are methods of analyzing academic productivity and influence. Currently, the assessment of antiphospholipid syndrome through the above analyses is lacking. This study investigated the quantity and quality of studies in the field of antiphospholipid syndrome and revealed the characteristics of worldwide productivity on this disease by the bibliometric analysis and altmetric analysis.

METHODS

The terms "APS," "antiphospholipid syndrome," "antiphospholipid-antibody syndrome," and "Hughes syndrome" were searched on the Web of Science Core Collection from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2021. Original articles and reviews were selected. We set the filters as "English."

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

A total of 1818 articles were retrieved from 68 countries, of which 20 met the criteria of major active countries. High-income countries contributed 1341 articles (73.48%). The number of articles annually increased significantly in the 10-year period (P < 0.001). The USA (253, 13.91%) was the most productive country. Adjusted by population, Serbia was top of the list. According to the gross domestic product analysis, Serbia ranked first. The most used keywords such as thrombosis and antiphospholipid antibodies were presented by keywords analyses. A content analysis found antithrombotic and anticoagulant therapy as research hotspots. A significant correlation was detected between average citations and altmetric attention scores (P = 0.002) and Mendeley readers count (P < 0.001). From 2011 to 2021, the number of global articles increased rapidly. Most papers came from high-income countries. The relationship between the bibliometric and altmetric analyses were basically consistent; therefore the two can prove/complement each other. Key points • We revealed the global productivity characteristics of the papers related to antiphospholipid syndrome by using the methods of bibliometric analysis and altmetric analysis. • We found the most selected articles that describe the treatment of antiphospholipid syndrome, especially antithrombotic and anticoagulant treatments, which may be the current research hotspot.

Altmetric and Bibliographic Analysis of the Most Popular Articles on Vitreoretinal Surgery Between 2010 and 2020

Purpose Altmetrics is a web-based metrics method that measures the online dissemination of an article and the interactions it receives. We aimed to perform a bibliometric and altmetrics analysis of the 100 most cited articles (T100) on vitreoretinal surgery (VRS) published between 2010 and 2020. Methods A detailed search including terms regarding VRS in the Web of Science database was conducted. Articles were examined for bibliometric data and altmetrics. Results T100 articles had citation numbers ranging from 55 to 368 and altmetrics score (AS) values ranging from 0 to 125, and there was no statistically significant correlation between them. AS was weakly correlated with publication year. A statistically weak negative correlation was also found between AS and percent of citable open access, number of years since publication (NYsP), and average citations per year (ACpY). Conclusion AS values of articles on VRS were found to be low. Apparently, this was because the issue was of a highly specific and technical nature. However, the existence of articles with a zero AS value despite high citation numbers suggests that journals and authors do not yet attach enough importance to altmetrics. Altmetric analysis is not a reliable indicator for evaluating the scientific value of an article, and it cannot be a substitute for traditional metrics but it can provide perspective on the social impact of articles.

Impact of podcasting on novel and conventional measures of academic impact

OBJECTIVE

Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) is an alternative metric for estimating the impact of academic publications. We studied the association of using podcasting to highlight publications about gynecological cancer with AAS and citation scores.

METHODS

Articles that were featured in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer (IJGC) podcast series January 2019 to September 2022 were matched 1:1 to control articles by the journal in which the article was published, study topic and design, single/multicenter data, and year of publication. Podcast articles were compared with matched-controls by citation metrics and altmetric scores.

RESULTS

A total of 99 podcasted articles published in 16 journals were matched. Median AAS was significantly higher in the podcast group than the matched-control group (22 (14-42) vs 5 (1-17), p<0.001). In a multivariable regression analysis, podcasting was the only factor associated with a high AAS (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.6, 95% CI 3.8 to 19.7). In the podcast group, the median number of citations per year was higher than matched-control studies (5.5 (3.0-12.7) vs 4.5 (2.0-9.5), p=0.047). The only article characteristics that were independently associated with ≥12 citations per year were if the publication described a randomized controlled trial (aOR 4.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.6) or featured cervical carcinoma as the subject focus (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.5). Compared with all articles published in IJGC during the study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year (5 (2-10) vs 1 (0-2.5), p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

When compared with matched-controls, podcasting an article is associated with a higher AAS but is not associated with generating a high (≥12) number of citations per year. When compared with all articles published in the same journal during the same study period, articles that were featured in a podcast had higher median citations per year.

An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals.

METHODS

Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases.

RESULTS

A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Researchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.

Evaluating Research Impact Based on Semantic Scholar Highly Influential Citations, Total Citations, and Altmetric Attention Scores: The Quest for Refined Measures Remains Illusive

Background: The evaluation of scholarly articles’ impact has been heavily based on the citation metrics despite the limitations of this approach. Therefore, the quest for meticulous and refined measures to evaluate publications’ impact is warranted. Semantic Scholar (SS) is an artificial intelligence-based database that allegedly identifies influential citations defined as “Highly Influential Citations” (HICs). Citations are considered highly influential according to SS when the cited publication has a significant impact on the citing publication (i.e., the citer uses or extends the cited work). Altmetrics are measures of online attention to research mined from activity in online tools and environments. Aims: The current study aimed to explore whether SS HICs provide an added value when it comes to measuring research impact compared to total citation counts and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS). Methods: Dimensions was used to generate the dataset for this study, which included COVID-19-related scholarly articles published by researchers affiliated to Jordanian institutions. Altmetric Explorer was selected as an altmetrics harvesting tool, while Semantic Scholar was used to extract details related to HICs. A total of 618 publications comprised the final dataset. Results: Only 4.57% (413/9029) of the total SS citations compiled in this study were classified as SS HICs. Based on SS categories of citations intent, 2626 were background citations (29.08%, providing historical context, justification of importance, and/or additional information related to the cited paper), 358 were result citations (3.97%, that extend on findings from research that was previously conducted), and 263 were method citations (2.91%, that use the previously established procedures or experiments to determine whether the results are consistent with findings in related studies). No correlation was found between HICs and AAS (r = 0.094). Manual inspection of the results revealed substantial contradictions, flaws, and inconsistencies in the SS HICs tool. Conclusions: The use of SS HICs in gauging research impact is significantly limited due to the enigmatic method of its calculation and total dependence on artificial intelligence. Along with the already documented drawbacks of total citation counts and AASs, continuous evaluation of the existing tools and the conception of novel approaches are highly recommended to improve the reliability of publication impact assessment.

An Analysis of the 50 Most-Cited "Uveitis" Articles Published Between 2010-2020 From a Bibliographic and Altmetric Perspective

Purpose We aimed to evaluate the 50 most-cited articles on uveitis according to their Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) and additional metrics. Methods The Web of Science (WoS) core collection database was used in this study. The article and journal metrics and characteristics were examined. In addition, the effect of article and journal metrics on the AAS was examined with multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS). Results The number of citations of the evaluated articles ranged from 670 to 90, and AASs ranged from 633 to 0. According to the MARS model, the importance scores of the predictors were as follows: article influence score (100%), immediacy index (77.74%), number of years since publication (57.79%), times cited in WoS (32.69%). We found that the trend of articles on uveitis was related to the "treatment category", namely, adalimumab. Second, the popular topic was uveitis caused by viruses. Conclusions We found that citation-based metrics and year of publication contributed to AAS. AAS appears to be inadequate in assessing the quality of articles. However, due to the electronic transformation of the publishing industry, it seems inevitable that altmetrics will become an additional supportive metric.

How to use Twitter at a Scientific Conference

In the past decade, social media platforms have been recognized as an important tool in the dissemination of science among the research community and as an interface between scientists and the general public. Publishing companies that specialize in scientific research now pay attention to alternative metrics (“altmetrics”) and provide comprehensive guides about social media management to editors. Twitter has emerged as a leader among social media platforms in the dissemination of science. This Perspective will assert the merits of using Twitter to expand the reach of scientific conferences while providing guidance on how to disseminate conference findings in real-time, called “live-tweeting,” without compromising scientific integrity.

Harnessing the True Power of Altmetrics to Track Engagement

Altmetrics has recently been at the forefront of tracking medical literature propagation on social media in the modern era. With the rapidly evolving landscape of social media for academia, there's room to revise the approach. The authors discuss current limitations and suggest changes to make online attention trackers more robust and wholesome. Medical literature propagated on currently popular social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok are not accounted for by altmetrics. For altmetrics to become a more robust tool it is vital that it keeps up with the times and accounts for representation of data from these platforms as well. Greater inclusivity, dynamic weightage of different social media platforms based on location dependant availability and usage, and period re-evaluation based on prevailing trends may help metrics reflect the true attention garnered by published research. Besides, development of hybrid scores with separate components to reflect online attention and traditional citations may provide readers a more fair and balanced perception of the actual importance of an article. With the changes proposed, altmetrics has the potential to become a much more inclusive and reflective tool in times to come.