Editorial

As is widely known, in recent years the impact factor of scientific journals has been the main indicator of their quality, based on the premise that a citation is a quality reference. Expressly, given the unfeasibility of another type of qualitative analysis, more easily quantifiable criteria are used. In order to contribute to this debate, Jason Priem et al. published in 2010 the Altmetrics manifesto, questioning the current framework (Impact Factor), and visualizing some available options to measure other indicators [1]. Thus, rooted in the hashtag affordance, they initiate a debate that could help improve the scope of the impact factor and incorporate the scope of new alternative metrics or Altmetrics. The term Altmetrics refers to a set of indicators that attempt to accurately describe the interaction and impact of an article within the scientific community and is proposed as an alternative to the impact factor generating a better indicator than the relationship established with the journals publishing the article [2]. Another definition of Altmetrics considers the mechanisms of quantitative evaluation, in real time, of the social and academic impact of scientific publications and researcher influence. They represent a new method of measuring the impact of scientific research, based on new indicators that attempt to quantify the presence and dissemination of scientific activity on the social networks [3].

Lin and Fenner propose a set of alternative metrics, in which they also establish a logical evolution according to the degree of engagement between users and scholarly objects, considering five parameters [4]:

Accordingly, the appearance of Altmetrics, its capabilities and potentials, and also its limitations, have generated a timely debate. Scientists specialized in bibliometry are convinced that the appearance of Altmetrics marks the birth of a new bibliometric specialty and shows the transition between the old bibliometry (based on the analysis of the journal and the use of the impact factor as the best indicator), towards a new bibliometry based directly on the analysis of documents and authors through indicators that feed on the greed of researchers not only for knowledge, but for recognition. They themselves recognize that the indicators of the alternative metrics are still unstable, and that their platforms are still settling [5].

On the other hand, several researchers have studied some of the indicators in order to prove their validity. In a study carried out on a set of more than 1,000 articles of PLOS recommended in F1000, it was found that on Facebook and Twitter, and particularly not in Figshare or Mendeley, it was possible to show indicators of articles of interest, so both social networks were recommended as a measure of the social impact of research [6].

The following are some advantages of the presence of scientific journals in social networks [7]:

Regarding the future challenges, scientific journals must consider not only competitiveness due to the impact factor but also the debate on open access and business models to ensure their sustainability. The debate goes further and is to determine if, after so many years since its appearance, the journals will be considered the most effective way of disseminating knowledge. Therefore, it is appropriate that scientific journals have a planned presence in social networks and a strategy to disseminate indicators based on Altmetrics, both for transparency, and the ability to measure the impact.

Finally, and in an environment as competitive as the current one, a synergistic combination between presence in social networks and alternative metrics can be a good strategy for scientific journals to attract potential authors, both for the service they offer before the publication (efficiency, quality of the review, etc.), as well as the dissemination and visibility strategy they can offer in the post-publication. In this sense, authors and scientific journals share some needs.