Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame

White, Howard D.; Zuccala, Alesia A.

doi:10.1002/asi.24064

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These analyses have also confirm the limited capacity for citation analyses to address the impact that books can have on different types of audiences (Nederhof, 2006;Hammarfelt, 2014). To address this limitation, many have devoted their efforts to explore alternative indicators, such as library holdings or "libcitations" (Torres-Salinas and Moed, 2009;White et al, 2009;White and Zuccala, 2018), book reviews (Zuccala and van Leeuwen, 2011;Gorraiz et al, 2014) or publishers' rankings based on survey data (Giménez-Toledo and Román-Román, 2009;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2013). Most of these alternative indicators have not yet reached maturity.…”

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 86%

The insoluble problems of books: what does Altmetric.com have to offer?

Torres‐Salinas

Gorraiz

Robinson-García

2018

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 PlumX.

show abstract

Section: Antecedentsmentioning

confidence: 86%

The insoluble problems of books: what does Altmetric.com have to offer?

Torres‐Salinas

Gorraiz

Robinson-García

2018

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…; White & Zuccala, 2018), where library holdings or "libcitations" were also found to be more prevalent than Google scholar and Scopus citations, with much lower PlumX usage counts, captures, mentions, and social media counts. Except for the correlation analyses, shown below, we present no further analyses pertaining to the PlumX indicators.…”

Section: Q12mentioning

confidence: 98%

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Zuccala

Pölönen

Guns

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares publisher ratings to the visibility and impact of individual books, based on a 2017 dataset from three Nordic PRFS systems (Denmark, Norway, and Finland). Although there are Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) for journals, there is no similar indicator for book publishers. National publisher lists are used instead to account for the general 'quality' of books, leading to institutional rewards. But, just as the JIF is not recommended as proxy for the ‘citedness’ of a paper, a publisher rating is also not recommended as proxy for the impact of an individual book. We introduce a small fish in a big pond versus big fish in a small pond metaphor, where a ‘fish’ is a book and ‘the pond’ represents its publishing house. We investigate how books fit on this metaphorical fish and pond continuum, using WorldCat holdings (visibility) and Google scholar citations (impact), and test other variables to determine their predictive value with respect to these two indicators. Our statistics show that publisher levels do not have predictive value, when other variables are held constant. This has implications for PRFSs and book evaluations in general, as well as ongoing developments related to a newly proposed international publisher registry.

show abstract

“…With the development of Web 2.0, many alternative evaluation resources are mined and used for measuring books' use impact. Library holdings (White & Zuccalá, 2018), library loans (Cabezas-Clavijo et al, 2013), publisher prestige (Donovan & Butler, 2007), syllabus mentions (Kousha & Thelwall, 2008) and social media mentions (Batooli et al, 2016;Oberst, 2017) were extracted and analyzed to measure books' impacts from different aspects.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources

Zhou

Zhang

2021

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The surge in the number of books published makes the manual evaluation methods (e.g. peer review) difficult to efficiently evaluate books. The use of books' citations and alternative evaluation metrics (e.g. library holdings, social media mentions, book reviews) can assist manual evaluation and reduce the cost of evaluation. However, most existing evaluation research was based on a single evaluation source with coarse-grained analysis, which may obtain incomprehensive or one-sided evaluation results of book impact. Meanwhile, relying on a single resource for book assessment may lead to the risk that the evaluation results cannot be obtained due to the lack of the evaluation data, especially for newly published books. Hence, this paper measured book impact based on an evaluation system constructed by integrating multiple evaluation sources. Specifically, we conducted finer-grained mining on the multiple evaluation sources, including books' internal evaluation resources (e.g. books' contents) and external evaluation resources (e.g. books' reviews, books' citations and books' usages). Various technologies (e.g. topic extraction, sentiment analysis, text classification) were used to extract corresponding evaluation metrics from the internal and external evaluation resources. Then, Expert evaluation combined with analytic hierarchy process was used to integrate the evaluation metrics and construct a book impact evaluation system. Finally, the reliability of the evaluation system was verified by comparing with the results of expert evaluation, detailed and diversified evaluation results were then obtained. The experimental results reveal that differential evaluation resources can measure the books' impacts from different dimensions, and the integration of multiple evaluation data can assess books more comprehensively.Meanwhile, the book impact evaluation system can provide personalized evaluation results according to the users' evaluation purposes. In addition, the disciplinary differences should be considered for assessing books' impacts.

show abstract

Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

The insoluble problems of books: what does Altmetric.com have to offer?

The insoluble problems of books: what does Altmetric.com have to offer?

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About