“Books” and “book chapters” in the book citation index (BKCI) and science citation index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI)

Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented

In this study, we investigate what share of researchers publish monographs across fields, gender and seniority. We acquired data from the Polish current research information system (POL-on) containing metadata of about 1,031,141 peer-reviewed publications from 67,415 Polish researchers, including 30,185 monographs from 2013 to 2016. The data are aggregated at the researcher level, which allows us to shed new light on publication patterns in all fields. We show that scholars who publish monographs also publish journal articles at the same time. This pattern is observed in all dimensions, i.e. research fields, gender and seniority. However, substantial differences between the fields are observed. Moreover, we show that researchers who publish monographs are also more productive in terms of the number of publications than researchers who did not publish any monographs. This result is independent of the publication counting method, i.e. fractional or whole counting. At the same time, scholars who publish monographs are more local-oriented in terms of the publication channels they choose.

Normalizing Book Citations in Google Scholar: A Hybrid Cited-side Citing-side Method

Purpose

To design and test a method for normalizing book citations in Google Scholar.

Design/methodology/approach

A hybrid citing-side, cited-side normalization method was developed and this was tested on a sample of 285 research monographs. The results were analyzed and conclusions drawn.

Findings

The method was technically feasible but required extensive manual intervention because of the poor quality of the Google Scholar data.

Research limitations

The sample of books was limited and also all were from one discipline —business and management. Also, the method has only been tested on Google Scholar, it would be useful to test it on Web of Science or Scopus.

Practical limitations

Google Scholar is a poor source of data although it does cover a much wider range citation sources that other databases.

Originality/value

This is the first method that has been developed specifically for normalizing books which have so far not been able to be normalized.

The insoluble problems of books: what does Altmetric.com have to offer?

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate’s Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com’s capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX.

Findings

Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools.

Practical implications

This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool.

Originality/value

This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com’s functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.