Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books

Aslib Journal of Information Management

Volumn 67, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 320-336

  Zuccala, Alesia A ^a,b   Verleysen, Frederik T ^c   Cornacchia, Roberto ^d   Engels, Tim C E ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^d Spinque ^*  (Netherlands)

^e ANTWERP MARITIME ACADEMY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Altmetrics; Books; Citation analysis; History; Reader recommendation systems; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

HISTORY; LIBRARIES; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

ALTMETRICS; BOOKS; CITATION ANALYSIS; DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH; DEWEY DECIMAL CLASSIFICATIONS; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS; SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES;

REVIEWS;

EID: 84929671567     PISSN: 20503806     EISSN: 20503814     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-11-2014-0152     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Allen, N. and Heath, O. (2013), “Reputations and research quality in British political science: the importance of journal and publisher rankings in the 2008 RAE”, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 147-162.
2. Amazon (2015), “History”, available at: www.amazon.com/History-Books/b?node=9 (accessed 12 March 2015).
3. Ankersmit, F. (2005), Sublime Historical Experience, Standford University Press, Stanford, CA.
4. Barré, R. (2005), “S&T indicators for policy making in a changing science-society relationship”, in Moed, H., Glänzel, W. and Schmoch, U. (Eds), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 115-131.
5. Bornmann, L. (2013), “What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey”, Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 217-233.
6. Bornmann, L. (2014), “Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 895-903.
7. Bornmann, L. (2015), “Usefulness of altmetrics for measuring the broader impact of research: A case study using data from PLOS and F1000Prime”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. XX-XX.
8. Cronin, B. and La Barre, K. (2004), “Mickey mouse and milton: book publishing in the humanities”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 85-98.
9. Dalton, M.S. and Charnigo, L. (2004), “Historians and their information sources”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 400-425.
10. Den Hertog, P., Jager., C.-J., Vankan, A., Te Velde, R., Veldkamp, J., Aksnes, D., Sivertsen, G., Van Leeuwen, T. and Van Wijk, E. (2014), “Science, technology & innovation indicators. Thematic paper 2: scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their relationship with research assessment”, available at: http://dialogic.nl/documents/ other/sti2_themepaper2.pdf (accessed 9 March 2015).
11. Donovan, C. (2007), “The qualitative future of research evaluation”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 565-574.
12. Donovan, C. (2008), “The Australian research quality framework: a live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research”, in Coryn, C.L.S. and Scriven, M. (Eds), Reforming the Evaluation of Research. New Directions for Evaluation, , Vol. 118, ,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 47-60.
13. Engels, T.C.E., Ossenblok, T.L.B. and Spruyt, E.H.J. (2012), “Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000-2009”, Scientometrics, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 373-390.
14. Finkelstein, N.G. and Birn, R.B. (1998), A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth, Henry Holt & Company Inc., New York, NY.
15. Goodreads (2015), “About Goodreads”, available at: www.goodreads.com/about/us (accessed 12 March 2015).
16. Hammarfelt, B. (2014), “Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities”, Scientometrics, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 1419-1430.
17. Haustein, S. and Siebenlist, T. (2011), “Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 446-457.
18. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M. and Larivière, V. (2014), “Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature”, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 656-669.
19. Holbrook, J.B. and Frodeman, R. (2011), “Peer review and the exante assessment of societal impacts”, Research Evaluation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 239-246.
20. Jones, C., Chapman, M. and Carr Woods, P. (1972), “The characteristics of the literature used by historians”, Journal of Librarianship, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 137-156.
21. Li, X., Thelwall, M. and Giustini, D. (2012), “Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement”, Scientometrics, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 461-471.
22. Moed, H.F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Springer, Dordrecht.
23. Nielsen, F. (2007), “Scientific citations in wikipedia”, First Monday, Vol. 12 No. 8, doi:10.5210/fm. v12i8.1997, available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/indexphp/fm/article/ view/1997/1872 (accessed 8 January 2014).
24. Nightingale, P. and Scott, A. (2007), “Peer review and the relevance gap: ten suggestions for policy-makers”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 543-553.
25. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003), “Introduction: 'Mode 2' revisited: the new production of knowledge”, Minerva, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 179-194.
26. Petit, J.C. (2004), “Why do we need fundamental research?”, European Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 191-207.
27. Poe, M. (2014), “New books in history. Discussions with historians about their new books”, available at: http://newbooksinhistory.com/ (accessed 17 January 2014).
28. Priem, J., Costello, K. and Dzuba, T. (2012a), “Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars”, Figshare, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.104629 (accessed 10 January 2014).
29. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P. and Neylon, C. (2010), “Alt-metrics: a manifesto”, available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (accessed 7 January 2014).
30. Reid, A. and Szreter, S. (2008), “Making history. The changing face of the profession in Britain. History & policy”, available at: www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory /resources/articles/ history_and_policy.html (accessed 2 December 2013).
31. Shema, H., Bar Illan, J. and Thelwall, M. (2014), “Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 1018-1027.
32. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C.R. (2013), “Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8 No. 5, p. e64841.
33. Thompson, J.B. (2005), Books in the Digital Age. The Transformation of Academic and Higher Education Publishing in Britain and the United States, Polity Press, Cambridge.
34. Tollebeek, J. and Verschaffel, T. (1992), De Vreugden Van Houssaye. Apologie Van de Historische Interesse, Wereldbibliotheek, Amsterdam, NL.
35. Tosh, J. (2008), Why History Matters, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
36. Trott, B. and Naik, Y. (2012), “Finding good reads on goodreads. Readers take RA into their own hands”, Reference & User Services Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 319-323.
37. Verleysen, F.T. and Engels, T.C.E. (2012), “Historical publications at flemish universities, 2000- 2009”, Journal of Belgian History - Revue Belge d'Histoire Contemporaine - Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 110-143.
38. Walker, R. (2011), “Conceptualizing the social impact of science (Conceptualizando el impacto social de la ciencia)”, available at: http://sisobproject.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/ conceptualizing-the-social-impact-of-science-2/ (accessed 14 January 2014).
39. Weller, K., Dröge, E. and Puschmann, C. (2011), “Citation analysis in Twitter: approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences”, in Rowe, M., Stankovic, M., Dadzie, A.-S. and Hardey, M. (Eds), Making Sense of Microposts (#MSM2011),Workshop at the Extended Semantic Web Conference(ESWC 2011), Heraklion, pp. 1-12, available at: http://files.ynada.com/papers/msm2011.pdf (accessed 7 January 2014).
40. White, H., Boell, S.K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C.S. and Cole, F.T.H. (2009), “Libcitations: a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 1083-1096.
41. WorldCat (2014), “Find items in libraries near you. 2 billion items available here through a library”, available at: www.WorldCat.org/ (accessed 17 January 2014).
42. Zins, C. and Santos, P.L.V.A.C. (2011), “Mapping the knowledge covered by library classification systems”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 877-901.
43. Zuccala, A., van Someren, M. and van Bellen, M. (2014), “A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: towards a theory of mega-citation”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 2248-2260.
44. Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R. and Bod, R. (2015), “Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, doi:10.1002/asi.23267 (in press).
45. Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A. and Hemminger, B.M. (2012b), “Altmetrics in the wild: using social media to explore scholarly impact”, available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1203.4745 (accessed 8 January 2014).