IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03808-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Siluo Yang

    (Wuhan University)

  • Xin Xing

    (Peking University)

  • Fan Qi

    (Wuhan University)

  • Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio

    (São Paulo State University (UNESP))

Abstract

Academic books are an important carrier of knowledge for scientific communication. This study aims to gain an improved understanding of academic books by jointly analyzing the altmetric and citation indicators. We explore the impact of academic books among six fields. The data set includes 666,527 records of the Book Citation Index from Web of Science in 2013–2017. Results reveal as follows. (1) The coverage of digital object identifiers and altmetric values on books was relatively low. (2) The impact of books shows evident disciplinary differences in the citation and altmetric indicators. Clinical, Pre-Clinical and Health books had the highest altmetric impact but the lowest citation impact. However, Physical Sciences books showed the opposite traits. Although books are the preferred publication format of the fields of Arts and Humanities; and Social Sciences, the performance of the book impact based on the citation and altmetric indicators was not apparent among six fields. Overall, Social Sciences have relatively better performance than Arts and Humanities. (3) The citation frequency of early publications is significantly higher than that of recent publications, whereas the altmetric attention score presented a growth trend and the cumulative effect is not evident. The clear but weak correlations between altmetric indicators and citations of books were also found. (4) The hierarchical cluster analysis of fields based on the citation and altmetric indicators revealed that the fields of Clinical, Pre-Clinical and Health; and Life Sciences showed high internal homogeneity. However, the fields of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities are heterogeneous. This study is a constructive attempt to show the macroscopic traits of academic books. Altmetric indexes were involved in multidisciplinary comparison analysis to enhance the understanding of books.

Suggested Citation

  • Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03808-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent Larivière & Éric Archambault & Yves Gingras & Étienne Vignola‐Gagné, 2006. "The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural sciences and engineering with social sciences and humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 997-1004, June.
    2. Howard D. White & Sebastian K. Boell & Hairong Yu & Mari Davis & Concepción S. Wilson & Fletcher T.H. Cole, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1083-1096, June.
    3. Henk F. Moed & Gali Halevi, 2015. "Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 1988-2002, October.
    4. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Mahshid Abdoli, 2017. "Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(8), pages 2004-2016, August.
    5. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    6. 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.
    7. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    8. Emanuel Kulczycki & Tim C. E. Engels & Janne Pölönen & Kasper Bruun & Marta Dušková & Raf Guns & Robert Nowotniak & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Alesia Zuccala, 2018. "Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 463-486, July.
    9. Howard D. White & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2018. "Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(12), pages 1502-1512, December.
    10. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    11. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    12. Mike Thelwall & Pardeep Sud, 2016. "Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(12), pages 3036-3050, December.
    13. Xia Nan & Ming Li & Jin Shi, 2020. "Using altmetrics for assessing impact of highly-cited books in Chinese Book Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1651-1669, March.
    14. Kuang-hua Chen & Muh-chyun Tang & Chun-mei Wang & Jieh Hsiang, 2015. "Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 97-112, January.
    15. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    16. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    17. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & Pei-Shan Chi, 2016. "The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2165-2179, December.
    18. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 566-581, March.
    19. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Sam Work & Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein, 2017. "Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2037-2062, September.
    20. n/a, 2015. "Book Reviews," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    21. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    22. A. Abrizah & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Can the impact of non-Western academic books be measured? An investigation of Google Books and Google Scholar for Malaysia," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    23. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Rodríguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Robinson-García, Nicolás & Fdez-Valdivia, J. & García, J.A., 2013. "Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 412-424.
    24. Emanuel Kulczycki & Przemysław Korytkowski, 2020. "Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1371-1387, November.
    25. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1537-1549, August.
    26. Stefanie Haustein & Timothy D. Bowman & Kim Holmberg & Andrew Tsou & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(1), pages 232-238, January.
    27. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    28. Rodrigo Costas & Zohreh Zahedi & Paul Wouters, 2015. "Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2003-2019, October.
    29. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    30. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    31. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    32. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    33. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    2. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhou, Qingqing & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2021. "Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    5. Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    6. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    7. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan & Silvio Peroni & Chao Che, 2020. "Nine million book items and eleven million citations: a study of book-based scholarly communication using OpenCitations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1097-1112, February.
    8. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    9. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    10. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1129-1160, February.
    11. Yajie Wang & Alesia Zuccala, 2021. "Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4817-4840, June.
    12. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "OCLC library holdings: assessing availability of academic books in libraries in print and electronic compared to citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 991-1020, February.
    15. Ronald Snijder, 2016. "Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1855-1875, December.
    16. Thelwall, Mike & Sud, Pardeep, 2014. "No citation advantage for monograph-based collaborations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 276-283.
    17. 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.
    18. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    19. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    20. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03808-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.