  The new web-based academic communication platforms do not only enable
researchers to better advertise their academic outputs, making them more
visible than ever before, but they also provide a wide supply of metrics to
help authors better understand the impact their work is making. This study has
three objectives: a) to analyse the uptake of some of the most popular
platforms (Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley and
Twitter) by a specific scientific community (bibliometrics, scientometrics,
informetrics, webometrics, and altmetrics); b) to compare the metrics available
from each platform; and c) to determine the meaning of all these new metrics.
To do this, the data available in these platforms about a sample of 811 authors
(researchers in bibliometrics for whom a public profile Google Scholar
Citations was found) were extracted. A total of 31 metrics were analysed. The
results show that a high number of the analysed researchers only had a profile
in Google Scholar Citations (159), or only in Google Scholar Citations and
ResearchGate (142). Lastly, we find two kinds of metrics of online impact.
First, metrics related to connectivity (followers), and second, all metrics
associated to academic impact. This second group can further be divided into
usage metrics (reads, views), and citation metrics. The results suggest that
Google Scholar Citations is the source that provides more comprehensive
citation-related data, whereas Twitter stands out in connectivity-related
metrics.
