Edited Volumes, Monographs, and Book Chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI)

In 2011, Thomson-Reuters introduced the Book Citation Index (BKCI) as part of the Science Citation Index (SCI). The interface of the Web of Science version 5 enables users to search for both "Books" and "Book Chapters" as new categories. Books and book chapters, however, were always among the cited references, and book chapters have been included in the database since 2005. We explore the two categories with both BKCI and SCI, and in the sister social sciences (SoSCI) and the arts & humanities (A&HCI) databases. Book chapters in edited volumes can be highly cited. Books contain many citing references but are relatively less cited. This may find its origin in the slower circulation of books than of journal articles. It is possible to distinguish between monographs and edited volumes among the "Books" scientometrically. Monographs may be underrated in terms of citation impact or overrated using publication performance indicators because individual chapters are counted as contributions separately in terms of articles, reviews, and/or book chapters.Comment: Journal of Scientometric Research, 2012, in pres

Towards a Book Publishers Citation Reports. First approach using the Book Citation Index

Este artículo se ha publicado posteriormente con actualización del contenido en: Torres-Salinas, D.; Robinson-García, N.; Jiménez-Contreras, E. y Delgado López-Cózar, E. Towards a "Book Publishers Citation Reports". First approach using the "Book Citation Index". Revista Española de Documentación Científica 35(4): 615-620 (2012). [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/22700]The absence of books and book chapters in the Web of Science Citation Indexes (SCI, SSCI and A&HCI) has always been considered an important flaw but the Thomson Reuters 'Book Citation Index' database was finally available in October of 2010 indexing 29,618 books and 379,082 book chapters. The Book Citation Index opens a new window of opportunities for analyzing these fields from a bibliometric point of view. The main objective of this article is to analyze different impact indicators referred to the scientific publishers included in the Book Citation Index for the Social Sciences and Humanities fields during 2006-2011. This way we construct what we have called the 'Book Publishers Citation Reports'. For this, we present a total of 19 rankings according to the different disciplines in Humanities & Arts and Social Sciences & Law with six indicators for scientific publishers

"Books" and "book chapters" in the Book Citation Index (BCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI)

In 2011, Thomson-Reuters introduced the Book Citation Index (BKCI) as part of the Science Citation Index (SCI). The interface of the Web of Science version 5 enables users to search for both "Books" and "Book Chapters" as new categories. Books and book chapters, however, were always among the cited references, and book chapters have been included in the database since 2005. We explore the two categories with both BKCI and SCI, and in the sister databases for the social sciences (SoSCI) and the arts & humanities (A&HCI). Book chapters in edited volumes can be highly cited. Books contain many citing references, but are relatively less cited. We suggest that this may find its origin in the slower circulation of books then of journal articles. It is possible to distinguish bibliometrically between monographs and edited volumes among the "Books". Monographs may be underrated in terms of citation impact or overrated using publication performance indicators because individual chapters are counted separately as contributions in terms of articles, reviews, and/or book chapters

Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index

Complementary Material to this study can be found at http://hdl.handle.net/10481/22587.In this paper we provide the reader with a visual representation of relationships among the impact of book chapters indexed in the Book Citation Index using information gain values and published by different academic publishers in specific disciplines. The impact of book chapters can be characterized statistically by citations histograms. For instance, we can compute the probability of occurrence of book chapters with a number of citations in different intervals for each academic publisher. We predict the similarity between two citation histograms based on the amount of relative information between such characterizations. We observe that the citation patterns of book chapters follow a Lotkaian distribution. This paper describes the structure of the Book Citation Index using ‘heliocentric clockwise maps’ which allow the reader not only to determine the grade of similarity of a given academic publisher indexed in the Book Citation Index with a specific discipline according to their citation distribution, but also to easily observe the general structure of a discipline, identifying the publishers with higher impact and output.This research was sponsored by the Spanish Board for Science and Technology (MICINN) under grant TIN2010- 15157 co financed with European FEDER funds

An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books

Recent studies have shown that counting citations from books can help scholarly impact assessment and that Google Books (GB) is a useful source of such citation counts, despite its lack of a public citation index. Searching GB for citations produces approximate matches, however, and so its raw results need time‐consuming human filtering. In response, this article introduces a method to automatically remove false and irrelevant matches from GB citation searches in addition to introducing refinements to a previous GB manual citation extraction method. The method was evaluated by manual checking of sampled GB results and comparing citations to about 14,500 monographs in the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from GB across 24 subject areas. GB citations were 103% to 137% as numerous as BKCI citations in the humanities, except for tourism (72%) and linguistics (91%), 46% to 85% in social sciences, but only 8% to 53% in the sciences. In all cases, however, GB had substantially more citing books than did BKCI, with BKCI's results coming predominantly from journal articles. Moderate correlations between the GB and BKCI citation counts in social sciences and humanities, with most BKCI results coming from journal articles rather than books, suggests that they could measure the different aspects of impact, however.University of Wolverhampto

Towards a "Book Publishers Citation Reports". First approach using the "Book Citation Index"

The absence of books and book chapters in the Web of Science Citation Indexes (SCI, SSCI and A&HCI) has always been considered an important flaw but the Thomson Reuters ‘Book Citation Index’ database was finally available in October of 2010 indexing 29,618 books and 379,082 book chapters. The Book Citation Index opens a new window of opportunities for analyzing Humanities and Social Sciences from a bibliometric point of view. The main objective of this article is to analyze different impact indicators referred to the scientific publishers included in the Book Citation Index for the Social Sciences and Humanities fields during 2006-2011. This way we construct what we have called the ‘Book Publishers Citation Reports’. For this, we present a total of 19 rankings according to the different disciplines in Humanities & Arts and Social Sciences & Law with six indicators for scientific publishers.La ausencia de libros y capítulos de libros en los índices de citas presentes en las bases de datos de la Web of Science ha sido tradicionalmente una de sus más importantes debilidades. Sin embargo, Thomson Reuters en Octubre de 2010 lanzó el Book Citation Index, un nuevo índice de citas que contaba con 29.618 libros y 379.082 capítulos de libros. Este producto ha abierto nuevas posibilidades para el análisis bibliométrico de campos como las Humanidades y las Ciencias Sociales. Precisamente el objetivo principal de esta nota es analizar a través de diferentes indicadores las editoriales de los ámbitos de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales indexadas en el Book Citation Index durante los años 2006-2011. Más concretamente se ha probado la posibilidad de desarrollar un ranking de editoriales de libros basado en la citación y la producción de las mismas. Para ello se presentan una colección de rankings con seis indicadores bibliométricos para un total de 19 disciplinas científicas

Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?

Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of citation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for academic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463 books from 2013 to 2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically extracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields. About 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year and field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher than from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by both. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more scholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and chapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic for books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more citations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft Academic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when comprehensive coverage is not essential

Goodreads Reviews to Assess the Wider Impacts of Books

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by John Wiley & Sons in Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology on 17/07/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23805 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the Arts (85% of books had at least one), Humanities (80%) and Social Sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations