IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i2d10.1007_s11192-021-04220-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

OCLC library holdings: assessing availability of academic books in libraries in print and electronic compared to citations and altmetrics

Author

Listed:
  • Ashraf Maleki

    (University of Turku)

Abstract

Although library holding data is constructed upon work format of books, it is less known how much print and electronic books in libraries contribute to the library holding counts. In response, this research is an attempt to explore the distribution of library holding data across work formats and investigate the availability of library print holdings and library electronic holdings for books as constituents of the library holding metric across fields and over time and compared with other book metrics. ISBNs, titles and author names of 119,794 Scopus-indexed book titles across 26 fields were examined for fourteen variables including OCLC Library Holdings, Scopus Citations, Google Books Citations, Goodreads engagements, and Altmetric indicators. There are three major findings: (a) library holdings are a more comprehensively available metric for books (over 97%) than any other metric and could be useful after short time after first edition publication, followed by Google Books, Goodreads and Scopus, respectively; (b) on average electronic holdings are seven times (median three times) more numerous than print holdings and their ratio is growing considerably for more recent books; (c) there is consistent downward trend in average print book holdings, suggesting that library print holding data are cumulative in nature and statistically comparable to formal citations; however, acquisition of electronic books in libraries is inconsistent in distribution plot as well as over time. In sum, the differences between print and electronic holding data are broad making them distinct metrics, suggesting that further research is needed for understanding their implications for book impact assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04220-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04220-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04220-6
    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/s11192-021-04220-6?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. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Moed, Henk 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, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 9-26.
    2. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2015. "An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(2), pages 309-320, February.
    3. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(12), pages 2993-3007, December.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(3), pages 762-779, March.
    9. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 529-541.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Alesia Zuccala & Mads Breum & Kasper Bruun & Bernd T. Wunsch, 2018. "Metric assessments of books as families of works," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 146-157, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gineke Wiggers & Suzan Verberne & Wouter van Loon & Gerrit‐Jan Zwenne, 2023. "Bibliometric‐enhanced legal information retrieval: Combining usage and citations as flavors of impact relevance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(8), pages 1010-1025, August.
    2. Eleonora Dagienė, 2024. "Mapping scholarly books: library metadata and research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5689-5714, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Eleonora Dagienė, 2024. "Mapping scholarly books: library metadata and research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5689-5714, September.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Exploring WorldCat identities as an altmetric information source: a library catalog analysis experiment in the field of Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1725-1743, February.
    11. 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.
    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. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    18. Matthew S. Bickley & Kayvan Kousha & Michael Thelwall, 2020. "Can the impact of grey literature be assessed? An investigation of UK government publications cited by articles and books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1425-1444, November.
    19. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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.

    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:127:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04220-6. 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.