Alternative metrics are primarily composed of raw data such as the counts of views, downloads, mentions, and so forth. Yet, they also feature several composite indicators that variously combine the above information. Topical examples are the Research Interest score provided by ResearchGate and the Altmetric Attention Score by Altmetric.com. As far as the latter is concerned, it is argued here that, as many weighted sums do, it merely tends to reproduce the information already conveyed by one or a few criteria to which excessive importance is given. In a weighted sum, when a term takes on much more weight than the others, the result tends to become redundant, and the Altmetric Attention Score is no exception. Bottom line: there remains an open question. Provided the alternative metrics point to different—perhaps irreconcilable—aspects of the broad societal impacts of scholarly research, does an additional indicator built on a weighted sum really matter?

中文翻译：

---

相对于基础信息的子集，多标准替代度量分数可能是多余的

替代指标主要由原始数据组成，例如观看次数、下载次数、提及次数等。然而，它们还具有多个综合指标，这些指标以不同方式结合了上述信息。专题示例是 ResearchGate 提供的研究兴趣分数和 Altmetric.com 的 Altmetric 注意力分数。就后者而言，这里认为，正如许多加权和所做的那样，它只是倾向于复制已经由一个或几个被给予过分重视的标准所传达的信息。在加权求和中，当一个词项的权重比其他词项大得多时，结果往往会变得多余，Altmetric Attention Score 也不例外。底线：仍然有一个悬而未决的问题。