Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source?

Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 59-70

  Kousha, Kayvan ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; INFORMATION SCIENCE; LIBRARIES; TEACHING;

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES; ACADEMIC REVIEWS; BOOK REVIEWS; CITATION IMPACT; FACULTY MEMBERS; IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; LOW CORRELATION; ONLINE COURSE;

REVIEWS;

EID: 84969686283     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (57)

1. About Choice magazine, 2015. http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/about
2. Albers, C. (2003). Using the syllabus to document the scholarship of teaching. Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 60-72.
3. Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329-342.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the "Introduction to informetrics" indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495-506.
5. Bauerlein, M. (2002). Disagreements in the humanities. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 15(1), 188-195.
6. Belfiore, E., & Upchurch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Humanities in the Twenty-first Century: Beyond Utility and Markets. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship revisited. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://184.168.109.199:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2134/1/ED326149.pdf
8. Butler, L., & Visser, M. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66(2), 327-343
9. Cronin, B., Snyder, H. & Atkins, H. (1997). Comparative citation rankings of authors in monographic and journal literature: a study of sociology. Journal of Documentation, 53(3), 263-273.
10. Crotty, D. (2012). Life after publication-post-publication peer review. Biochemist, 34(4), 26-28. http://www.biochemist.org/bio/03404/0026/034040026.pdf
11. Cullars, J. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 20(1), 41-68.
12. Donovan, C., & Butler, L. (2007). Testing novel quantitative indicators of research "quality," esteem and "user engagement:" An economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 231-242.
13. Garand, J.C., & Giles, M.W. (2011). Ranking scholarly publishers in political science: An alternative approach. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(2), 375-383.
14. Garfield, E. (1996). Citation Indexes for Retrieval and Research Evaluation. Consensus Conference on the Theory and Practice of Research Assessment, Capri.
15. 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.
16. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Purnell, P. J. (2014). The power of book reviews: A simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics, 98(2), 841-852.
17. 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.
18. Gurung, R. A. A., Landrum, R. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2012). Textbook use and learning: A North American perspective. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 87-98.
19. Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419-1430.
20. Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194-1207.
21. Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193-215.
22. 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.
23. Hunter, J. (2012, August 30). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, doi:10.3389/fncom.2012. 00063
24. Jenkins, A. (1995). The research assessment exercise, funding and teaching quality. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(2), 4-12.
25. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060-2069.
26. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google Book Search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537-1549.
27. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309-320.
28. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (in press, 2015). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://www.koosha.tripod.com/AmazonReviewstoAssessBooks-Preprint.
29. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (in press). An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/cm1993/papers/SyllabiBookCitations.
30. 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.
31. Krampen, G., Becker, R., Wahner, U., & Montada, L. (2007). On the validity of citation counting in science evaluation: Content analyses of references and citations in psychological publications. Scientometrics, 71(2), 191-202.
32. Levine-Clark, M., & Jobe, M. M. (2007). Do reviews matter? An analysis of usage and holdings of choicereviewed titles within a consortium. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 639-646.
33. 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.
34. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 3, pp. 1-11). http://sticonference.org/Proceedings/vol2/Li-F1000-541.
35. Linmans, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link. Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library bindings and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337-354.
36. Mohammadi, E. & Thelwall, M. (2013). Assessing non-standard article impact using F1000 labels. Scientometrics, 97(2), 383-395.
37. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638.
38. Nederhof, A. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81-100.
39. Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129-140.
40. Nussbaum, M. C. (2012). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. PBRF. (2013). Performance-Based Research Fund Quality Evaluation Guidelines 2012 http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/PBRF-Quality-Evaluation-Guidelines-2012.
42. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2011). altmetrics: a manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
43. Shaw, D. (1991). An analysis of the relationship between book reviews and fiction holdings in OCLC. Library and Information Science Research, 13(2), 147-154.
44. Small, H. (2013). The Value of the Humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Taylor, J. & Walker, I. (2009). Peer assessment of research: How many publications per staff? Lancaster University Management School, Working Paper 2009/035. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/31757/1/006236.
46. Thelwall, M. & Wilson, P. (in press). Mendeley readership Altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/cm1993/papers/MendeleyInScienceAltmetricsPreprint.
47. Thompson, B. (2007). The syllabus as a communication document: Constructing and presenting the syllabus. Communication Education, 56(1), 54-71.
48. 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.
49. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Campanario, J. M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the book citation index. Online Information Review, 38(1), 24-42.
50. Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Jiménez-Contreras, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2012). Towards a 'Book Publishers Citation Reports'. First approach using the 'Book Citation Index'. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 35(4), 615-620.
51. Torres-Salinas, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, R., Robinson-García, N., Fdez-Valdivia, J., & García, J. A. (2013). Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 412-424.
52. Waltman, L. & Costas, R. (2014). F1000 Recommendations as a potential new data source for research evaluation: a comparison with citations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 433-445.
53. Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, N.J: Information Today.
54. White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & 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, 60(6), 1083-1096.
55. Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus "perceived cultural benefit" (RIP). In J. Gorraiz, E. Schiebel, C. Gumpenberger, M. Hörlesberger, & H. Moed (Eds.) Proceedings of 14th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp.353-360). Vienna, Austria: AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH Vienna.
56. Zuccala, A. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1979-1991.
57. Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (in press). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. http://www.illc.uva.nl/evaluating-humanities/RankingPublishers(Preprint-2014).pdf