Yesterday, I created a Mendeley group with our paper trail:
The purpose was to get some #altmetrics on the impact of our project (I blogged about that a year ago). We haven't started tagging the papers, and comments on useful tags are most welcome. Should we tag with matching Example Application, with consortium partner, both? Something else? Let me know.
Of course, Mendeley is also an attractive platform, with Word/OpenOffice/LibreOffice plugins for reference management, and it provides nice web pages for papers with possible direct links to OA PDFs and bookmark statistics. For example, for this paper:
We can see the paper detail in the middle, and get added value on the right. We see a thumbnail of the paper, a list of authors with Mendeley profiles (here only Rob Hooft), and then the reader statistics, and learn that 129 people have taken the time to put this paper in the reference database.
In fact, that is quite a lot. You can believe me, or you can look up the numbers. That is what #altmetrics is about. We can use altmetric.com and find these numbers:
Not just does such #altmetrics give us a number, it actually tells us who, what, why, and how. Much more informative than, let's say, a journal impact factor. This is scientific communication in action.
What this page does not tell us, is whether 46 is high, though the page does comment that this paper "is one of the highest ever scores in this journal (ranked #6 of 1,586)". Now, this is a Nature Genetics papers, and more than 1500 Nature Genetics papers got a value, and this paper is ranked #6! Yes, that is impact.
Total Impact gives further detail, but is called ImpactStory now. I ran this on output from our project, papers but also software and slides. One neat and really useful feature of this webpage is that it provides percentiles on data, in more detail than the comment from altmetric.com:
We get an detailed of view on where the impact is found, and the percentile information. Here too, we learn that this paper has a relative high impact, compared to peers: it is in the top 3% of papers by impact. Interestingly, the Mendeley reader count was not picked up (update: this was tracked down as a data glitch in the Mendeley database). Mind you, the percentiles for 2012 are not yet available; we have to wait a month or two for those.
And, all counts are linked. Just click on, for example, "72 tweets" (using Topsy) and you get the actual tweets, and learn what people have to say about this paper:
But to do full justice to Euan Adie's altmetric.com work, that side captures the blogosphere pretty well (not suprisingly, given it is Euan). Just check the screenshot above again.