There are a few things to remember about altmetrics when tapping into non-traditional methods of metrics reporting. Graphic by Miguel Tovar/University of Houston

Alternative metrics, or “altmetrics,” refers to the use of non-traditional methods for judging a researcher’s reach and impact.

Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is surely a great feat. It’s the typical way professors get their research out there. But the tools established to measure this output might end up giving the skewed impression about an author’s impact in spheres both academic and social.

Traditional metrics

Web of Science and Scopus are the main platforms that researchers rely on for collecting article citations. Web of Science’s indexing goes back to 1900, and Scopus boasts the largest database abstract and citations. The caveat with these repositories is that each resource only gives you a rating based on the range and breadth of journals it indexes. Different journals are recorded in different tools, so you may not be getting a comprehensive metric from either.

Let’s talk about h index

The h index is probably never going away, although it is always being improved upon.

An h index is a complex equation that tells the story of how often a researcher is cited. For instance, if a scholar published six papers, and all six papers were each cited by at least six other authors, they would have an h index of 6.

This equation doesn’t work out too well for an academic who, say, had one paper that was continuously cited – they would still have an h index of 1. Brené Brown, Ph.D., even with her veritable empire of vulnerability and shame related self-help has h index of 7 according to Semantic Scholar.

On to altmetrics

When a psychology professor goes on a morning show to discuss self-esteem of young Black women, for instance, she is not helping her h index. Her societal impact is huge, however.

“When I use altmetrics to deliver a professor his or her impact report, I seek out nontraditional sources like social media. For instance, I check how many shares, comments or likes they received for their research. Or maybe their work was reported in the news,” said Andrea Malone, Research Visibility and Impact Coordinator at the University of Houston Libraries.

Altmetrics aim to answer the question of how academia accounts for the numerous other ways scholarly work impacts our society. What about performances done in the humanities, exhibitions, gallery shows or novels published by creative writers?

Alternative metrics are especially important for research done in the humanities and arts but can offer social science and hard science practitioners a better sense of their scope as well. With the constant connections we foster in our lives, the bubble of social media and such, there is a niche for everyone.

The equalizer

For some, Twitter or Facebook is where they like to publish or advertise their data or results.

“When altmetrics are employed, the general public finds out about research, and is able to comment, share and like. They can talk about it on Twitter. The impact of the work is outside of academia,” said Malone. She even checks a database to see if any of the professor’s works have been included in syllabi around the country.

Academia.edu is another social network offering a platform for publishing and searching scholarly content. It has a fee for premium access, whereas Google Scholar is free. Its profile numbers are usually high because it can pick up any public data – even a slide of a PowerPoint.

The Big Idea

At the University of Houston, altmetrics are categorized thusly: articles, books and book chapters, data, posters, slides and videos. While one would think there’s no downside to recording all of the many places academic work ends up, there are a few things to remember about altmetrics:

  1. They lack a standard definition. But this is being worked on currently by the NISO Alternative Assessment Metrics Initiative.
  2. Altmetrics data are not normalized. Tell a story with your metrics, but don’t compare between two unlike sources. Youtube and Twitter will deliver different insights about your research, but they can’t be compared as though they measure the same exact thing.
  3. They are time-dependent. Don’t be discouraged if an older paper doesn’t have much to show as far as altmetrics. The newer the research, the more likely it will have a social media footprint, for example.
  4. They have known tracking issues. Altmetrics work best with items that have a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

So have an untraditional go of it and enlist help from a librarian or researcher to determine where your research is making the biggest societal impact.

------

This article originally appeared on the University of Houston's The Big Idea. Sarah Hill, the author of this piece, is the communications manager for the UH Division of Research.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Innovation Labs @ TMC set to launch for early-stage life science startups

moving in

The Texas Medical Center will launch its new Innovation Labs @ TMC in January 2026 to better support life science startups working within the innovation hub.

The 34,000-square-foot space, located in the TMC Innovation Factory at 2450 Holcombe Blvd., will feature labs and life science offices and will be managed by TMC. The space was previously occupied by Johnson & Johnson's JLABS @TMC, a representative from TMC tells InnovationMap. JLABS will officially vacate the space in January.

TMC shares that the expansion will allow it to "open its doors to a wider range of life science visionaries," including those in the TMC BioBridge program and Innovation Factory residents. It will also allow TMC to better integrate with the Innovation Factory's offerings, such as the TMC Health Tech accelerator, TMC Center for Device Innovation and TMC Venture Fund.

“We have witnessed an incredible demand for life science space, not only at the TMC Innovation Factory, but also on the TMC Helix Park research campus,” William McKeon, president and CEO of the TMC, said in a news release. “Innovation Labs @ TMC enables us to meet this rising demand and continue reshaping how early-stage life science companies grow, connect, and thrive.”

“By bringing together top talent, cutting-edge research, and industry access in one central hub, we can continue to advance Houston’s life science ecosystem," he continued.

The TMC Innovation Factory has hosted 450 early-stage ventures since it launched in 2015. JLABS first opened in the space in 2016 with the goal of helping health care startups commercialize.

13 Houston businesses appear on Time's best midsize companies of 2025

new report

A Houston-based engineering firm KBR tops the list of Texas businesses that appear on Time magazine and Statista’s new ranking of the country’s best midsize companies.

KBR holds down the No. 30 spot, earning a score of 91.53 out of 100. Time and Statista ranked companies based on employee satisfaction, revenue growth, and transparency about sustainability. All 500 companies on the list have annual revenue from $100 million to $10 billion.

According to the Great Place to Work organization, 87 percent of KBR employees rate the company as a great employer.

“At KBR, we do work that matters,” the company says on the Great Place to Work website. “From climate change to space exploration, from energy transition to national security, we are helping solve the great challenges of our time through the high-end, differentiated solutions we provide. In doing so, we’re striving to create a better, safer, more sustainable world.”

KBR recorded revenue of $7.7 billion in 2024, up 11 percent from the previous year.

The other 12 Houston-based companies that landed on the Time/Statista list are:

  • No. 141 Houston-based MRC Global. Score: 85.84
  • No. 168 Houston-based Comfort Systems USA. Score: 84.72
  • No. 175 Houston-based Crown Castle. Score: 84.51
  • No. 176 Houston-based National Oilwell Varco. Score: 84.50
  • No. 234 Houston-based Kirby. Score: 82.48
  • No. 266 Houston-based Nabor Industries. Score: 81.59
  • No. 296 Houston-based Archrock. Score: 80.17
  • No. 327 Houston-based Superior Energy Services. Score: 79.38
  • No. 332 Kingwood-based Insperity. Score: 79.15
  • No. 359 Houston-based CenterPoint Energy. Score: 78.02
  • No. 461 Houston-based Oceaneering. Score: 73.87
  • No. 485 Houston-based Skyward Specialty Insurance. Score: 73.15

Additional Texas companies on the list include:

  • No. 95 Austin-based Natera. Score: 87.26
  • No. 199 Plano-based Tyler Technologies. Score: 86.49
  • No. 139 McKinney-based Globe Life. Score: 85.88
  • No. 140 Dallas-based Trinity Industries. Score: 85.87
  • No. 149 Southlake-based Sabre. Score: 85.58
  • No. 223 Dallas-based Brinker International. Score: 82.87
  • No. 226 Irving-based Darling Ingredients. Score: 82.86
  • No. 256 Dallas-based Copart. Score: 81.78
  • No. 276 Coppell-based Brink’s. Score: 80.90
  • No. 279 Dallas-based Topgolf. Score: 80.79
  • No. 294 Richardson-based Lennox. Score: 80.22
  • No. 308 Dallas-based Primoris Services. Score: 79.96
  • No. 322 Dallas-based Wingstop Restaurants. Score: 79.49
  • No. 335 Fort Worth-based Omnicell. Score: 78.95
  • No. 337 Plano-based Cinemark. Score: 78.91
  • No. 345 Dallas-based Dave & Buster’s. Score: 78.64
  • No. 349 Dallas-based ATI. Score: 78.44
  • No. 385 Frisco-based Addus HomeCare. Score: 76.86
  • No. 414 New Braunfels-based Rush Enterprises. Score: 75.75
  • No. 431 Dallas-based Comerica Bank. Score: 75.20
  • No. 439 Austin-based Q2 Software. Score: 74.85
  • No. 458 San Antonio-based Frost Bank. Score: 73.94
  • No. 475 Fort Worth-based FirstCash. Score: 73.39
  • No. 498 Irving-based Nexstar Broadcasting Group. Score: 72.71