Library Catalog Analysis and Library Holdings Counts: origins, methodological issues and application to the field of Informetrics

Unrevised version to be published in "Evaluative informetrics – the art of metrics based research assessment. Festschrift in honour of Henk F. Moed" , edited by Cinzia Daraio and Wolfgang Glänzel.In 2009, Torres-Salinas & Moed proposed the use of library catalogs to analyze the impact and dissemination of academic books in different ways. Library Catalog Analysis (LCA) can be defined as the application of bibliometric techniques to a set of online library catalogs in order to describe quantitatively a scientific-scholarly field on the basis of published book titles. The aim of the present chapter is to conduct an in-depth analysis of major scientific contributions since the birth of LCA in order to determine the state of the art of this research topic. Hence, our specific objectives are: 1) to discuss the original purposes of library holdings 2) to present correlations between library holdings and altmetrics indicators and interpret their feasible meanings 3) to analyze the principal sources of information 4) to use WorldCat Identities to identify the principal authors and works in the field of Informetrics

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

Is the diffusion of books in library holdings a reliable indicator in research assessment?

Books are a crucial product of research in SSH. The evaluation of quality of books is currently managed through peer expert review, which is based on a full reading of their content. In the literature there was the suggestion to use data from catalogues to obtain indicators to be used in an aggregate way, for example to estimate the diffusion and readership of books. However, the literature does not offer empirical analysis of the role, potential and limitations over a range of disciplines. The chapter presents an overview of the survey carried out in Italy of a sample of books in two fields, History of books, Bibliography, Library science and History of political institutions. The study offers a critical analysis of the reliability of the diffusion of monographs in library holdings as indicator to use in research assessment. Data on the diffusion of books in a large number of libraries are obtained and cleaned. Special attention is also devoted to the analysis of the selection, acquisition procedures and management of library collections, connected with the research evaluation process

Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences?

The quantitative evaluation of Social Science and Humanities (SSH) and the investigation of the existing similarities between SSH and Life and Hard Sciences (LHS) represent the forefront of scientometrics research. We analyse the scientific production of the universe of Italian academic scholars , over a 10-year period across 2002–2012, from a national database built by the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of Universities and Research Institutes. We demonstrate that all Italian scholars of SSH and LHS are equals, as far as their publishing habits. They share the same general law, which is a lognormal. At the same time, however, they are different, because we measured their scientific production with different indicators required by the Italian law; we eliminated the “silent” scholars and obtained different scaling values—proxy of their productivity rates. Our findings may be useful to further develop indirect quali–quantitative comparative analysis across heterogeneous disciplines and, more broadly, to investigate on the generative mechanisms behind the observed empirical regularities. © 2017, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary