818 research outputs found
Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems
In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the
conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with
empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our
review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities,
referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the
indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated
with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their
unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for
both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive
evaluation systems.Comment: Forthcoming in Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall, M.
(2018). Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Some
corrections made in subsection 'Publisher prestige or quality
Do prestigious Spanish scholarly book publishers have more teaching impact?
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to assess the educational value of prestigious and productive Spanish scholarly publishers based on mentions of their books in online scholarly syllabi.
Design/methodology/approach
Syllabus mentions of 15,117 books from 27 publishers were searched for, manually checked and compared with Microsoft Academic (MA) citations.
Findings
Most books published by Ariel, SĂntesis, Tecnos and Cátedra have been mentioned in at least one online syllabus, indicating that their books have consistently high educational value. In contrast, few books published by the most productive publishers were mentioned in online syllabi. Prestigious publishers have both the highest educational impact based on syllabus mentions and the highest research impact based on MA citations.
Research limitations/implications
The results might be different for other publishers. The online syllabus mentions found may be a small fraction of the syllabus mentions of the sampled books.
Practical implications
Authors of Spanish-language social sciences and humanities books should consider general prestige when selecting a publisher if they want educational uptake for their work.
Originality/value
This is the first study assessing book publishers based on syllabus mentions
Do prestigious Spanish scholarly book publishers have more teaching impact?
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to assess the educational value of prestigious and productive Spanish scholarly publishers based on mentions of their books in online scholarly syllabi.
Design/methodology/approach
Syllabus mentions of 15,117 books from 27 publishers were searched for, manually checked and compared with Microsoft Academic (MA) citations.
Findings
Most books published by Ariel, SĂntesis, Tecnos and Cátedra have been mentioned in at least one online syllabus, indicating that their books have consistently high educational value. In contrast, few books published by the most productive publishers were mentioned in online syllabi. Prestigious publishers have both the highest educational impact based on syllabus mentions and the highest research impact based on MA citations.
Research limitations/implications
The results might be different for other publishers. The online syllabus mentions found may be a small fraction of the syllabus mentions of the sampled books.
Practical implications
Authors of Spanish-language social sciences and humanities books should consider general prestige when selecting a publisher if they want educational uptake for their work.
Originality/value
This is the first study assessing book publishers based on syllabus mentions
El ranking BiPublishers: Principales resultados y problemas metodológicos en la construcción de rankings de editoriales académicas
We present the results of the Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers project (also known as BiPublishers). This project represents the first attempt to systematically develop bibliometric publisher rankings. The data for this project was derived from the Book Citation Index and the study time period was 2009-2013. We have developed 42 rankings: 4 by fields and 38 by disciplines. We display six indicators for publishers divided into three types: output, impact and publisher’s profile. The aim is to capture different characteristics of the research performance of publishers. 254 publishers were processed and classified according to publisher type: commercial publishers and university presses. We present the main publishers by field and then discuss the principal challenges presented when developing this type of tool. The BiPublishers ranking is an on-going project which aims to develop and explore new data sources and indicators to better capture and define the research impact of publishers.Presentamos los resultados del proyecto Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers (BiPublishers). Es el primer proyecto que desarrolla de manera sistemática rankings bibliomĂ©tricos de editoriales. La fuente de datos empleada es el Book Citation Index y el periodo de análisis 2009-2013. Se presentan 42 rankings: 4 por áreas y 38 por disciplinas. Mostramos seis indicadores por editorial divididos segĂşn su tipologĂa: producciĂłn, impacto y caracterĂsticas editoriales. Se procesaron 254 editoriales y se clasificaron segĂşn el tipo: comerciales y universitarias. Se presentan las principales editoriales por áreas. DespuĂ©s, se discuten los principales retos a superar en el desarrollo de este tipo de herramientas. El ranking Bipublishers es un proyecto en desarrollo que persigue analizar y explorar nuevas fuentes de datos e indicadores para captar y definir el impacto de las editoriales acadĂ©micas
An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi
University of Wolverhampto
Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?
University of Wolverhampto
The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer?
Purpose: Analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX. Methodology: We perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions platform offers for books. We use two distinct datasets of books. On the one hand, we analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other, we use Clarivate’s Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com’s capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, we compare our findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX.
Findings: Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, we find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. Our comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and
are rather complementary than comparable tools.
Practical implications: This study targets different audiences which can benefit from our findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool. Originality/value: This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com’s functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via Plum
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
- …