Toby Green, writing in the LSE Impact Blog:
In a recent case study, I describe how I drew attention to three of my papers published since 2017. This required a change to my normal routine in order to dedicate a little bit of time every day over a period of months to develop opportunities to engage using social media. I learned what worked and what didn’t by using two tracking and reporting tools: Kudos and Altmetric. However, getting hold of some data, especially download data, proved difficult and publishers could certainly up their game here. For me, these efforts paid off, both articles are among the journal’s most-downloaded and have Altmetric scores in the top 5% of all research outputs. As a result, I have received invitations to speak at conferences and write blog posts (like this one) which, in turn, develops my audience and increases my chance of making an impact.
Green is right that translating scholarship for the public—and working to make it visible—is worth our time. But that effort doesn’t need to be framed, as Green’s explicitly is, in terms of REF-style “impact”—with its top-down, metric-tide market ethos. The tools he recommends are also problematic for an open-scholarship future: Altmetric is owned by Springer Nature, and Kudos is an independent for-profit—a sitting duck for a bepress-like Elsevier acquisition.