IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v11y2002i3p129-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields

Author

Listed:
  • Jeppe Nicolaisen

Abstract

Book reviews serve a number of important functions in various academic settings, necessitating a high level of scholarship. A scholarly book review describes and characterizes not only the book in question, but also the topic with which it is dealing. It examines whether the book under review provides new knowledge to the field, and how it relates to established theories. Scholarly book reviews consequently reflect their scholarly qualifications by containing appropriate discussions of related literature. The paper proposes a bibliometric technique for determining the scholarliness of book reviews. The proposed technique rests on central insights gained from related research on scholarly communication, strategic research materials, and genre analysis. Inclusion of bibliographic references is revealed to be a key indicator of scholarship and is therefore implemented as the decisive factor in the following case study of book reviews in six selected social science fields. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2002. "The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 129-140, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:129-140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154402781776808
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang & Star X. Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2016. "Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1435-1455, June.
    2. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    3. Yaoyu Wei & Weiwei Fan, 2018. "A study of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI journals by researchers from five countries: 2006–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 637-654, May.
    4. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    5. Tove Faber Frandsen & Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2023. "Defining the unscholarly publication: a bibliometric study of uncited and barely cited publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1337-1350, February.
    6. Nicolaisen, Jeppe & Frandsen, Tove Faber, 2008. "The Reference Return Ratio," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 128-135.
    7. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    8. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:11:y:2002:i:3:p:129-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.