An extensive analysis of the presence of different altmetric indicators provided by Altmetric.com across scientific fields is presented, particularly focusing on their relationship with citations. Our results confirm that the presence and density of social media altmetric counts are still very low and not very frequent among scientific publications, with 15%-24% of the publications presenting some altmetric activity and concentrating in the most recent publications, although their presence is increasing over time. Publications from the social sciences, humanities and the medical and life sciences show the highest presence of altmetrics, indicating their potential value and interest for these fields. The analysis of the relationships between altmetrics and citations confirms previous claims of positive correlations but relatively weak, thus supporting the idea that altmetrics do not reflect the same concept of impact as citations. Also, altmetric counts do not always present a better filtering of highly cited publications than journal citation scores. Altmetrics scores (particularly mentions in blogs) are able to identify highly cited publications with higher levels of precision than journal citation scores (JCS), but they have a lower level of recall. The value of altmetrics as a complementary tool of citation analysis is highlighted, although more research is suggested to disentangle the potential meaning and value of altmetric indicators for research evaluation.

翻译：对Altitric.com提供的不同科学领域测得指标的存在进行了广泛的分析,特别侧重于其与引文的关系。我们的结果证实,社会媒体测得值的存在和密度仍然非常低,科学出版物中不甚常见,科学出版物中15%-24%显示某种测得活动,并集中在最近的出版物中,尽管这些出版物的存在随着时间的推移不断增加。社会科学、人文和医学及生命科学的出版物显示测度值最高,表明它们在这些领域的潜在价值和兴趣。对测度和引文之间关系的分析证实了以前关于正相关但相对薄弱的说法,从而支持了对正相关因素的主张,认为对正度的计数并不反映与引文相同的影响概念。此外,测算并非总能比期刊引文分数更好地过滤高引用的出版物。测度分数(特别是在博客中提及)能够发现高度引用的出版物,显示其准确度高于期刊引用分数(JCS),但它们的回顾度较低。测算法作为研究价值的一种补充性分析工具,但测得得更低。