They don't--Figshare is a repository, not really meant to be a source of metrics--the views/downloads can be thought of here as metadata. It's a back-burner idea to get those into Altmetric, but I wouldn't hold your breath (there are too many front-burner ideas!).

@hahnel.org has anyone ever produced a dataset like this? Could be fun (and meta!) to share the numbers in a Figshare-hosted dataset (with yearly versioning?)

What would you want to do with it? (I'm happy to help you out!)

info.figshare.com/user-guide/h...

Figshare has an awesome, open API! So not in one place (it's a dream of mine to get it on BigQuery...), but freely accessible! Although... it might only have views and downloads? Citations you should be able to get from the Dimensions Metrics API...though I've never tried it with a dataset before!

Good question! The lowest rate by far are those publications where field can't be assigned (meaning the metadata is particularly poor anyway--probably without even an abstract available). Chemistry, Physical Sciences, and Engineering are rocking the ORCID, while the humanities are all lagging. -2024

I used Dimensions data on BigQuery plus our GBQ mirror of the Crossref dataset.

In 2024, of articles where the DOI was minted by Crossref, I find 42% provided at least one ORCID. Of those, 12.6% of the publications had an "authenticated" ORCID.

Yes, and the Score is probably the most useless part of what Altmetric offers. (As we tried to communicate with FT...) Alone, it tells you nearly nothing. The sources of that attention, the sentiment of the posts, the consequence of the policy document that cited the research... that matters!

I am here for the highlights!

Digital Science CEO Dr Daniel Hook @dwh.bsky.social says: “We’re excited to see Professor Wang leveraging both Dimensions and Altmetric to deliver a high-quality “multifaceted impact analysis framework”.

@dimensions.ai @altmetric.com

4/10

I know... so sad. I had hoped the first post I saw was fake 😔