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

Bibliometric solutions for identifying potential collaborators

Bibliometric indicators and methodologies are commonly used for benchmarking institutions and individuals, and analyzing their research performance. Their potential for identifying partners and promoting collaboration is many times overseen by research institutions. In this presentation we will discuss different indicators and methodologies that can be used to spot institutions, research groups and individuals working on similar research fronts. By using different visualization techniques, we will provide examples on how to present these data in an appealing way which can inform university and research managers. These types of analyses are useful when searching for potential partners or designing strategies to establish scientific collaboration networks

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 bibliométricos 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 según su tipología: producción, impacto y características editoriales. Se procesaron 254 editoriales y se clasificaron según el tipo: comerciales y universitarias. Se presentan las principales editoriales por áreas. Después, 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 académicas

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

Mapping the backbone of the Humanities through the eyes of Wikipedia

The present study aims to establish a valid method by which to apply the theory of co-citations to Wikipedia article references and, subsequently, to map these relationships between scientific papers. This theory, originally applied to scientific literature, will be transferred to the digital environment of collective knowledge generation. To this end, a dataset containing Wikipedia references collected from Altmetric and Scopus’ Journal Metrics journals has been used. The articles have been categorized according to the disciplines and specialties established in the All Science Journal Classification (ASJC). They have also been grouped by journal of publication. A set of articles in the Humanities, comprising 25 555 Wikipedia articles with 41 655 references to 32 245 resources, has been selected. Finally, a descriptive statistical study has been conducted and co-citations have been mapped using networks and indicators of degree and betweenness centralit

How important is computing technology for library and information science research?

© 2015 Elsevier Inc. Computers in library and information science (LIS) research have been an object of study or a tool for research for at least fifty years, but how central are computers to the discipline now? This research analyses the titles, abstracts, and keywords of forty years of articles in LIS-classified journals for trends related to computing technologies. The proportion of Scopus LIS articles mentioning some aspect of computing in their title, abstract, or keywords increased steadily from 1986 to 2000, then stabilised at about two thirds, indicating a continuing dominance of computers in most LIS research. Within this general trend, many computer-related terms have peaked and then declined in popularity. For example, the proportion of Scopus LIS article titles, abstracts, or keywords that included the terms "computer" or "computing" decreased fairly steadily from about 20% in 1975 to 5% in 2013, and the proportion explicitly mentioning the web peaked at 18% in 2002. Parallel analyses suggest that computing is substantially less important in two related disciplines: education and communication, and so it should be seen as a key aspect of the LIS identity.Published versio

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