Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries

Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge; Engels, Tim; Ingwersen, Peter; Pölönen, Janne; Sivertsen, Gunnar; Verleysen, Frederik T.; Zuccala, Alesia A.

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5

Cited by 60 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each group works together to identify specialty-area journals that fit a level 1 (normal) or level 2 (prestigious) category. Level 1 journals are linked to a 1.0 reward point and level 2 are linked to 3.0 reward points (Giménez-Toledo et al 2016). Approaches differ everywhere, and few classification schemes are alike, but many tend to be hierarchical, and each can be created using a cognitive approach, a pragmatic approach, or a scientometric approach when needed (see Glänzel and Schubert 2003).…”

Section: Fields/disciplinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This volume enters into a time period marked by a growing shift towards national data infrastructures for the SSH (see Giménez-Toledo et al 2016), as well as an interest in Google Scholar, Google Books, and other under-exploited data-bases, like international library catalogs (Kousha et al 2011;Torres-Salinas and Moed 2009;White et al 2009). Here, I wish to highlight some of the techniques that the Italian researchers in this volume have used to retrieve, refine and utilize data for their most recent evaluation procedure, but first I want to start this section by examining what data means for the social sciences and humanities, and why it has to be approached with an open mind.…”

Section: Databases and Data Quality For The Sshmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language, Culture and Traversing the Scholarly Evaluation Landscape

Zuccala

2018

The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Fields/disciplinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Databases and Data Quality For The Sshmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language, Culture and Traversing the Scholarly Evaluation Landscape

Zuccala

2018

The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

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

“…Each year, performance points are then calculated on the basis of these PURE records and used to determine the amount of leftover government funding to be distributed across departments or research centers (i.e., 25% of the new basic funds, which are 5% of the total basic funding). Monographs are included, and each registration earns a department or research center 5.00 points (level 1 authority publisher) or 8.00 points (level 2 authority publisher) (Giménez‐Toledo et al, ). The data retrieved for our study were a set of monographs that had been registered in eight University PURE repositories between the years 2005–2015.…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metric assessments of books as families of works

Zuccala

Breum

Bruun

et al. 2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe the intellectual and physical properties of books as manifestations, expressions, and works and assess the current indexing and metadata structure of monographs in the Book Citation Index (BKCI). Our focus is on the interrelationship of these properties in light of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR). Data pertaining to monographs were collected from the Danish PURE repository system as well as the BKCI (2005BKCI ( -2015 via their International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs). Each ISBN was then matched to the same ISBN and family-related ISBNs cataloged in two additional databases: OCLC-WorldCat and Goodreads. With the retrieval of all family-related ISBNs, we were able to determine the number of monograph expressions present in the BKCI and their collective relationship to one work. Our results show that the majority of missing expressions from the BKCI are emblematic (i.e., first editions of monographs) and that both the indexing and metadata structure of this commercial database could significantly improve with the introduction of distinct expression IDs (i.e., for every distinct edition) and unifying work-related IDs. This improved metadata structure would support the collection of more accurate publication and citation counts for monographs and has implications for developing new indicators based on bibliographic levels.

show abstract

Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries

Cited by 60 publications

References 46 publications

Language, Culture and Traversing the Scholarly Evaluation Landscape

Language, Culture and Traversing the Scholarly Evaluation Landscape

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

Metric assessments of books as families of works

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About