It's just to very quickly go over some of the things, the themes that we saw through the conference. We've got a little bit of housekeeping in the end as well. So the first thing before anything else is to say thank you, you guys for coming.

So we were very surprised when we started to find the conference and what the interest was like. Or rather when we first released tickets for the conference, the interest was like, there's far more people coming than we thought. And Ron Kelly is very kindly set up, so here are both of these, very kindly set up a

linear page of the conference. So if you want to go and say that you're offended and get the content for other people and leave the slides back, please do. Ian spent it already, so I won't go over it again. And then on the conference website, there's some details of a research grant that is kindly sponsored by Thomson Reuters.

So if you go on there, it's not a huge amount of money, but it's enough to do something cool with, I think. And it's a fairly open-ended thing in that it's not prescriptive. You have to use it for this kind of research. If you have a good idea and you've heard something interesting in the past few days and you thought, well, we should do a little project about that. I'm not going to fund a PhD for a year or anything, but it's a good start.

So in terms of what the conference was like over the past few days, yeah, this is the first thing. It was pretty different than what I expected. There was definitely some things I didn't expect. So some of the slash fix and stuff yesterday in the context of ethics, it all made sense

I think. Sexy archaeology from Hans this morning. Ian's emoji of all kinds. And this is actually a post-it one, conference Wi-Fi, maybe too cynical. I just assume now that when I go to a conference, no one's going to be able to live tweet it or anything. And this one was different. I think the Wi-Fi worked for everyone.

I saw a lot of tweeting going on, a lot of live blogging, and I'll come to that in a little bit. I was speaking to James Hardcastle from Taylor & Francis earlier this morning, and he was saying maybe success because we haven't talked about some of the things that come up normally when you talk about all metrics, especially in a certain crowd.

And the first thing being that the top few articles are usually, when you're looking at what's popular and what's getting public engagement, it's like a bunch of cults. For scientific papers, it's papers that are about sex or cannabis or weight loss. Or Winnie the Pooh is the one that we always see. And there's a difference about article of metrics and all metrics, and then also this

came up before, the whole renaming and redefining all metrics, and it's possible to spend a long time, and I think a lot of us know from bitter experience. It's possible to spend a long time negotiating the semantics of this with lots of different stakeholders. So just to ruin that, I thought one of the things we learned from this conference is

that actually there is, that is to some extent necessary, and again, Ian pointed out, we've kind of dealt with it now by saying, look, that's the name, let's stick with it. But for people new to the field, sometimes they do still get hung up, that's definitely come up as a previous point in this conference, all metrics, don't get hung up on the metrics

bit. Like it's not necessarily that people are saying just use the numbers, just because it has metrics in the name of the field. It's misleading, but it's the best thing we have at the moment. If you come up with a better one, maybe that should be the $2,500, but no, okay.

Alright, so some of the things we went through with these libraries, today it was more publishers. And all those different groups have different uses for all metrics, I think that's important

to remember. So we talk about research evaluation in the context of funders, but actually for publishers it could be more about discovery, it could be more about an author service, this kind of thing. For a librarian it could be research support, health authors, communicator, or it could be more like a comms office or a marketing office type initiative.

So there's all sorts of different ways you can use the data, and the thing is that what is a good way for one constituency to use data isn't necessarily the way that everyone else would use it as well. There's a tendency I think to view all metrics through the prism of your own use case, if

you like. That's not necessarily helpful, it doesn't need to be that way. Definitions I think again, we talked about the name already, but it is very important. Especially when you get a conference like this and there's lots of those different groups together. So yesterday in the breakout session we had quite an interesting discussion, I thought

it was a point well made about how, for example, in publishing, at least in SDM publishing, when we talk about impact, we're talking about citations and the impact factor, and there's kind of a shorthand around that, it's kind of understood what you mean, but when you talk about impact to someone in a research admin office, or the impact

in terms of reference, something completely different, you're more, at least in impact you're talking about the pathways to impact and kind of showing things along that pathway. The impact is what happens at the end. It's not the fact that you have 10 tweets that's the impact, it's the fact that those

tweets influence something at the end. This one again, I mean it comes up quite a lot, I thought it was good to be part down. Our metric is obviously much more than just tweets, I mean it's more than social media as well actually, but especially more than tweets.

I fall victim to this all the time, and a lot of the slides we saw dealt with Twitter as the main examples of things, but it's not necessarily the be all and end all of everything. So that said, we do have some vanity metrics, it's like the anti-altmetric, having said

the prejudice and everything and the numbers aren't important, we beat the altmetrics 14 hashtag, yes, by quite a substantial margin as well, that was a good conference by the way, I'll bet you it was. On a more serious note, I thought Adam's talk yesterday was very good, and I thought

this prescription for the data was quite important and worth mentioning again. So if you remember he was talking about how the data should be consistent and transparent and available. I thought it was a very interesting conversation earlier this morning with Jeff and Cameron when they were talking about the infrastructure, and this was a question worth asking, do

we want to look back in 10 years and say oh, I wish we'd stepped in and done something with altmetrics before the industry took it over. As I'm giving this talk, I'll give the alternate view, which is in 10 years you could be looking back and going, I wish we'd given this to industry, and then we could be so much further ahead instead I have to have my next board meeting with the other 12 members

of the committee, and anyway, sorry. Okay, we're at the end there. Incentives come up, so if there is value in this sort of thing, and you could take

public engagement as an example of one of the things there might be value in. Do we need to change the environment the researchers operate in to allow them to sort of take part in that, and then how do we do that? Do we do it through training, do we do it through case studies, or do we do it with prizes or something that's come up a couple of times? Coming to the end, so research outputs, again we heard a lot about this today.

Article level metrics is not the same as altmetrics. We're talking about articles, but actually we should be generalizing to research outputs and that could be software, it could be book chapters, it could be data sets. And on that note, we shouldn't forget our humanities. I think it is interesting that a lot of the altmetrics tool providers come from STM effectively.

There's not that kind of feedback, again in the service providers, from humanities and social sciences. Finally, on this, and this was something that came up just in the last couple of sessions,

but there's still a lot of room to work with the data. Someone said it before, and I can't remember who it was now, but they were saying we're in this unusual position where we have a lot of data but we don't necessarily understand it. We haven't started with the question and then found the data, we've got the data, and now we need to do it the other way around.

And there's lots of room to contextualize it. Again, we talked in the session before this about getting more demographics on the data to visualize it, this kind of thing. So those were the themes as I saw, I'm sure I missed some out. Luckily, the entire conference was blogged, and you can find it

if you go to the main conference website, allmetricsconference.com, and there's a blog tab, you'll get into the WordPress instance, and there's been a lot of people blogging over the past couple of days. I think there's still some posts that go up, they're not all on there yet. But for each session, there's relatively detailed notes. So if you popped out for coffee or something in one of the sessions,

or you're listening remotely and you didn't catch all of it, there's a chance to catch up on what was said. And tying into that, the working Wi-Fi, I think it's worth calling out all the people that were live tweeting it. I was really impressed.

So Mr. Gunden and Todd were called out there, but actually there was a whole bunch of people who, I started writing down everyone's names and I realized there was too many of them. So apology if you ran out, if you're in the dot dot dot. But thanks very much. And also thanks, of course, the people that helped organize it

and who've actually been running it the past few days. So George and Kat and Fran, wherever they are. And to everyone else that helped put the program together. And we'll see you at 2 a.m.

So first we'll see you at the bedroom and arms, possibly, which is just down Houston road because you're all welcome. Thanks.