Metric assessments of books as families of works

Zuccala, Alesia A.; Breum, Mads; Bruun, Kasper; Wunsch, Bernd

doi:10.1002/asi.23921

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, studies of book citations have shown that they do indeed differ from citations of other types of publications in a variety of ways (Glänzel et al, 2016;Kousha et al, 2011;Leydesdorff & Felt, 2012;Torres-Salinas et al, 2014). There are also problems in bibliometrically identifying books that do not occur so much with journal papers (Giménez-Toledo et al, 2016;Williams et al, 2018;Zuccala et al, 2018;Zuccala & Cornacchia, 2016) which will be discussed in the data collection section.…”

Section: The Hybrid Methods 21 Defining the Comparator Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is necessary to investigate each one and if they do appear to refer to the same book, the citations are amalgamated. c) With entries not classified as "books" the situation is more complex (Zuccala et al, 2018;Zuccala & Cornacchia, 2016). The general possibilities are "citation", "pdf", "html" or most commonly just "blank".…”

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The problem is that many of these editions would have been published before the target book and so could not possibly have cited it. Zuccala et al (2018) have investigated this as part of the problem of accurate…”

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Mingers

Kaymaz

2019

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To design and test a method for normalizing book citations in Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach A hybrid citing-side, cited-side normalization method was developed and this was tested on a sample of 285 research monographs. The results were analyzed and conclusions drawn. Findings The method was technically feasible but required extensive manual intervention because of the poor quality of the Google Scholar data. Research limitations The sample of books was limited and also all were from one discipline —business and management. Also, the method has only been tested on Google Scholar, it would be useful to test it on Web of Science or Scopus. Practical limitations Google Scholar is a poor source of data although it does cover a much wider range citation sources that other databases. Originality/value This is the first method that has been developed specifically for normalizing books which have so far not been able to be normalized.

show abstract

Section: The Hybrid Methods 21 Defining the Comparator Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Research Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Mingers

Kaymaz

2019

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, assessing books is not an easy task as there are various challenges not present in journal assessing. These unique issues are related to various 'matching' problems related to the ISBN (Zuccala & Cornacchia, 2016), insufficient indexing books in the databases (Torres-Salinas et al, 2013), a lack of widely recognized rankings of academic book publishers (Giménez , and problems with combing data on various book editions and translations into groups of works or book families (Zuccala, Breum, Bruun, & Wunsch, 2018). Thus, book evaluation is mostly based on publisher profiles (Manana-Rodriguez & Giménez-Toledo, 2018), library holdings (Biagetti, Iacono, & Trombone, 2018), internationalization indicators , book reviews (Basili & Lanzillo, 2018) and formal criteria (Kulczycki, 2018).…”

Section: Book Evaluation In European Performance-based Research Fundimentioning

confidence: 99%

Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System

Liu

He³

2018

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to present the key systemic changes in the Polish book evaluation model to focus on the publisher list, as inspired by the Norwegian Model. Design/methodology/approach In this study we reconstruct the framework of the 2010 and 2018 models of book evaluation in Poland within the performance-based research funding system. Findings For almost 20 years the book evaluation system in Poland has been based on the verification of various technical criteria (e.g. length of the book). The new 2018 model is based on the principle of prestige inheritance (a book is worth as much as its publisher is) and is inspired by the publisher list used in the Norwegian Model. In this paper, we argue that this solution may be a more balanced policy instrument than the previous 2010 model in which neither the quality of the publisher nor the quality of the book played any role in the evaluation. Research limitations We work from the framework of the 2018 model of book evaluation specified in the law on higher education and science from 20 July 2018, as implementation acts are not available yet. Practical implications This study may provide a valuable point of reference on how structural reforms in the research evaluation model were implemented on a country level. The results of this study may be interesting to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers focused on science policy. Originality/value This is the very first study that presents the new framework of the Polish research evaluation model and policy instruments for scholarly book evaluation. We describe what motivated policy makers to change the book evaluation model, and what arguments were explicitly raised to argue for the new solution.

show abstract

“…The evaluation of scholarly books and the evaluation of journal articles each have unique issues. In terms of scholarly book evaluation, the main challenges are integrating data for a metric assessment (Zuccala and Cornacchia, 2016), combining data on books as groups of work (Zuccala et al , 2018), constructing the lists and rankings of academic publishers (Giménez-Toledo et al , 2016) and developing commercial book citation indexes (i.e. the Book Citation Index) so that it is a viable tool for carrying out international studies concerning books (Torres-Salinas et al , 2013, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diversity of monographs: changing landscape of book evaluation in Poland

Kulczycki

2018

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences published by Polish scholars. The study provides a comprehensive overview of the Polish book evaluation system to explain how monographs are assessed and illustrate how changes in the definitions of the types of scholarly book publications influence publication patterns. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses bibliographic records of 42,307 monographs published by Polish scholars in the humanities and science fields from 2009 to 2016. Through a bibliometric analysis, the paper investigates the characteristic patterns of the monographs, including authorship, publication language and length, across three fields. Findings The present study demonstrates that changes in the definitions of scholarly book publications in Poland have significantly influenced the characteristic patterns of monographs. The analysis of the characteristic patterns across three fields reveals that the monographs are different in terms of all characteristics. In the entire period, 85.3 percent monographs were written in Polish, 10.1 percent in English, 1.4 percent in German, 1.1 percent in Russian and 2.1 percent in 39 other languages. The most significant changes are observed in authorship patterns. Originality/value This work offers empirical findings on the characteristic patterns of monographs in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences from a non-English speaking country. It discusses a unique model of book assessment and shows certain consequences of various overly formalized procedures of evaluation. Thus, the study identifies the major challenges and implications of using highly formalized procedures for book evaluation.

show abstract

Metric assessments of books as families of works

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System

The diversity of monographs: changing landscape of book evaluation in Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About