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

Scientometrics

Volumn 107, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 685-699

  Giménez Toledo, Elea ^a   Mañana Rodríguez, Jorge ^a   Engels, Tim C E ^b,c   Ingwersen, Peter ^d   Pölönen, Janne ^e   Sivertsen, Gunnar ^f   Verleysen, Frederik T ^b   Zuccala, Alesia A ^d  

^a INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^c ANTWERP MARITIME ACADEMY   (Belgium)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^e Federation of Finnish Learned Societies   (Finland)

^f NORDIC INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN INNOVATION   (Norway)

Author keywords

Book assessment models; Book publishers; CRIS; Funding allocation; Indicators; Monographs; Social Sciences and Humanities

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957933161     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy,42(5), 725–737.
2. Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation,24(2), 106–117.
3. Aagaard, K., Bloch, C. W., Schneider, J. W., Henriksen, D., Ryan, T. K., & Lauridsen, P. S. (2014). Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Aarhus Universitet. http://www.uhr.no/documents/Evaluering_af_den_norske_publiceringsindikator.pdf.
4. Adams, J., & Testa, J. (2011). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), The 13th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 13–18). Durban: ISSI, Leiden University and University of Zululand.
5. Auranen, O., & Pölönen, J. (2012). Classification of scientific publication channels: Final report of the Publication Forum project (2010–2012). Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. http://www.tsv.fi/files/yleinen/publication_forum_project_final_report.pdf.
6. Bibliographic Indicator. https://bfi.fi.dk/Publication/NationalAnalysis. Viewed 19.01.2016.
7. Biglu, M. H. (2008). The influence of references per paper in the SCI to Impact Factors and the Matthew Effect. Scientometrics,74(3), 453–470.
8. Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv047.
9. Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics,40(3), 407–422.
10. Cronin, B., & La Barre, K. (2004). Mickey Mouse and Milton: Book publishing in the humanities. Learned Publishing,17(2), 85–98.
11. Cullars, J. (1992). Citation characteristics of monographs in the fine arts. Library Quarterly,62, 325–342.
12. Cullars, J. M. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library & Information Science Research,20, 41–68.
13. Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2004). Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics,59(2), 253–276.
14. Deepika, J., & Mahalakshmi, G. S. (2011). Journal impact factor: A measure of quality or popularity? In IICAI (pp. 1138–1157).
15. Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics,93, 373–390.
16. Errami, M., Sun, Z., Long, T. C., George, A. C., & Garner, H. R. (2009). Deja vu: A database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research,37(suppl 1), D921–D924.
17. Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal,22(8), 2623–2628.
18. Frølich, N. (2011). Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities. Public Administration,89(3), 840–859.
19. Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411.
20. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA,295(1), 90–93.
21. Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T., Ingwersen, P., Polonen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2015a). The evaluation of scholarly books as research output. Current developments in Europe. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on scientometrics & informetrics. Istambul: ISSI, 2015.
22. Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Tejada-Artigas, C. M. (2015b). Scholarly publishers indicators: Prestige, specialization and review systems of scholarly book publishers. El profesional de la información, 24(6), 855–860. http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2015/nov/18.pdf.
23. Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation,18(3), 201–213.
24. Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation,22(1), 64–77. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs036.
25. Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management,35(1), 31–44.
26. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(7), 1388–1398.
27. Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(9), 1194–1207.
28. Heinzkill, R. (1980). Characteristics of references in selected scholarly. English journals. Library Quarterly,50, 352–365.
29. Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
30. Hicks, D. (2012a). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy,41(2), 251–261.
31. Hicks, D. (2012b). One size doesn’t fit all: On the co-evolution of national evaluation systems and social science publishing. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics,1(1), 67–90.
32. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature,520, 429–431.
33. Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,59(11), 1819–1828.
34. Ingwersen, P., & Larsen, B. (2014). Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1291-x.
35. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,62(11), 2147–2164.
36. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). The impact factor’s Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,61(2), 424–427.
37. Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Journal of Scientometric Research,1(1), 28–34.
38. Michavila, F. (dir.). (2012). La Universidad española en cifras. Madrid: CRUE. http://www.crue.org/Publicaciones/Documents/UEC/LA_UNIVERSIDAD_ESPANOLA_EN_CIFRAS.pdf.
39. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Greater incentives for strengthening quality in education and research: A proposal for revising the funding model for universities as of 2015. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2014/liitteet/tr07.pdf?lang=fi.
40. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2015). Proposal for the funding model of universities as of 2017. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2015/liitteet/tr19.pdf?lang=fi.
41. Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.
42. Oppenheim, C., & Summers, M. A. (2008). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise, part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music). Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 13(2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper342.html.
43. Ossenblok, T. L., Engels, T. C., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290.
44. Pölönen, J., & Ruth, A.-S. (2015). Final report on 2014 review of ratings in Publication Forum, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies 2015. http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/sites/julkaisufoorumi.fi/files/publication_forum_final_report_on_2014_review_of_ratings.pdf.
45. Puuska, H.-M. (2014). Scholarly Publishing Patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
46. Sharp, S. (2004). The Research Assessment Exercises 1992–2001: Patterns across time and subjects. Studies in Higher Education,29(2), 201–218.
47. Sharp, S., & Coleman, S. (2005). Ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise 2001—The patterns of university status and panel membership. Higher Education Quarterly,59(2), 153–171.
48. Siegel, D., & Baveye, P. (2010). Battling the paper glut. Science,329(5998), 1466.
49. Sivertsen, G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter,6(1), 22–28.
50. Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics,91(2), 567–575.
51. Sivertsen, G., & Schneider, J. W. (2012). Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Oslo: NIFU.
52. Stern, M. (1983). Characteristics of the literature of literary scholarship. College and Research Libraries,44, 199–209.
53. Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management,22(2), 202–217.
54. Technopolis Group. (2013). Evaluation of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). Executive summary. Amsterdam: Technopolis Group.
55. Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri,52, 121–136.
56. Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Library Catalog Analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in Economics. Journal of Informetrics,3(1), 9–26.
57. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Fuente-Gutierrez, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Bibliometric indicators for publishers. http://bipublishers.es.
58. UNE. (2014). España crea un sello de calidad para reconocer la excelencia científica del proceso editorial de las colecciones publicadas por las universidades.http://www.une.es/Ent/Items/ItemDetail.aspx?ID=9610.
59. Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64, 428–430.
60. Verleysen, F. T., Ghesquière, P., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). In W. Blockmans, et al. (Eds.), The use and abuse of bibliometrics (pp. 115–125). London: Academiae Europaea; Portland Press.
61. White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. (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,60(6), 1083–1096.
62. Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2014). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(7), 1333–1347.
63. Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,62, 1979–1991. doi:10.1002/asi.21588.
64. Zuccala, A. A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management,67(3), 320–336.