Why don't use https://www.altmetric.com/ company?

As in the treatment of OA publications via Scopus, the use of Scopus, Mendeley and Plum Analytics immediately places a specific bias on the analysis of research's alternative impact. Such bias is anti-thetical to an "open science" monitoring system. Is there not an opporuntity for something more holistic? Or even for, say, alternative metrics to be delivered by, say, AltMetric? Note again that by using Scopus as the benchmark for published works, the underlying dataset will also be skewed towards the indexing coverage of Scopus.

Exclude Scopus and Plum Analytics as there is clear conflic of interest.

I would recommend looking at this article that compares Plum Analytics, Altmetric and Crossref Event Data https://osf.io/938wc/ A combination of all three would give a better picture.

I see a conflict of interest in only relying on Scopus, Mendeley and Plum Analytics for this.

What about Researchfish? https://www.researchfish.net/

ImpactStory is also completely lacking from this.

Please dont rely on one data source, combine Altmetric, Plum, ImpactStory.

I agree with what is mentioned in the comments above, regarding diverse data sources (and would also like to see the principle of open sources and methods in use). I would also like to challenge the use of altmetrics as one concept used as indicators below Open collaboration. It is not clarified what is meant by Open collaboration (btw researchers, with larger community?) in the draft methodological note so it is hard to tell which indicator would be suitable: Mendeley could be a choice for collaboration btw researchers, preferably alongside other datasources so not to rely on only one.