There are other databases of papers one reads/stores, like Zotero...

Yes, other platforms must be included, such as Zotero, ResearchGate, ScienceOpen, etc, etc, etc

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

Mendeley is not related to Altmetrics or Open Science. This needs to be scrapped.

This actively discriminates against researchers who do not use Mendeley, and therefore should be removed as any form of reliable indicator. Indeed, rather than having us question all of these indicators, where is the rationale and justification for any of them?

The use of Mendeley and Plumanalytics owned by Elsevier such as Scopus is maybe not compatible with EU competition laws. The exclusive use of Scopus, Mendeley and Plumanalytics for OA monitoring may be a violation of competition EU laws by abuse of market dominance, even officially the metrics would be officially performed by CWTS. This configuration should be checked by the EU competition commission. Alternatives are use of Altmetrics, Zotero, Papers, Endnote, Reference Manager, BibTek, etc.

Endogamic indicator! You use an Elsevier owned database compared to an Elsevier owned social network, which by the way most users left the day after Elsevier acquisition. All these Scopus/Mendely indicators are useless as they are too narrow