Abstract
Both citations to an academic work and post-publication reviews of it are indicators that the work has had some impact on the research community. The Thomson Reuters evaluation and selection process for web of knowledge journals includes citation analysis but this is not systematically practised for evaluation of books for the book citation index (BKCI) due to the inconsistent methods of citing books, the volume of books and the variants of the titles, especially in non-English language. Despite the fact that correlations between citations to a book and the number of corresponding book reviews differ from research area to research area and are overall weak or non-existent, this study confirms that books with book reviews do not remain uncited and accrue a remarkable mean number of citations. Therefore, book reviews can be considered a suitable selection criterion for BKCIs. The approach suggested in this study is feasible and allows easy detection of corresponding books via its book reviews, which is particularly true for research areas where books play a more important role such as the social sciences, the arts and humanities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bilhartz, T. D. (1984). In 500 words or less: Academic book reviewing in American history. The History Teacher, 17(4), 525–536.
Blake, V. (1989). The role of reviews and reviewing media in the selection process: An examination of the research record. Collection Management, 11(1–2), 1–40.
Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86. Reprint (1985). Journal of Information Science, 10(4), 176–180.
Bradford, S. C. (1946). Documentation. London: Crosby Lockwood.
Cole, F. J., & Eales, N. B. (1917). The history of comparative anatomy. Part I: A statistical analysis of the literature. Science Progress, 11, 578–596.
Dilevko, J., McMillan, B., Allison-Cassin, S., Aspinall, J., & Mauro, C. (2006). Investigating the value of scholarly book reviews for the work of academic reference librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 452–456.
Diodato, V. (1984). Impact and scholarliness in arts and humanities book reviews: A citation analysis. In Proceedings of the 47th annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science (vol. 21, pp. 217–221).
Furnham, A. (1986). Book reviews as a selection tool for librarians: comments from a psychologist. Collection Management, 8(1), 33–43.
Garfield, E. (1964). The citation index—A new dimension in indexing. Science, 144(3619), 649–654.
Glenn, N. (1978). On the misuse of book reviews. Contemporary Sociology, 7(3), 254–255.
Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.
Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207.
Koizumi, M. (2010). Book selection by librarians and faculty through collection evaluation methods: A case study of Keio University Library in Japan. Library and Information Science, 63, 41–59.
Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities. The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Westport: Greenwood Press.
McBride, D. (2006). The future of the scholarly monograph. Urban affairs review, 42(1), 132–135.
Nicolaisen, J. (2002a). The J-shaped distribution of citedness. Journal of Documentation, 58(4), 383–395.
Nicolaisen, J. (2002b). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140.
Parker, J. M. (1989). Scholarly book reviews in literature journals as collection development sources for librarians. Collection Management, 11(1–2), 41–57.
Riley, L. E., & Spreitzer, E. A. (1970). Book reviewing in the social sciences. American Sociologist, 5(4), 358–363.
Serebnick, J. (1992). Selection and holdings of small publishers’ books in OCLC libraries: A study of the influence of reviews publishers and vendors. Library Quarterly, 62(3), 259–294.
Spink, A., Robbins, D., & Schamber, L. (1998). Use of scholarly book reviews: implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 364–374.
Tsuda, Y., & Miyaji, N. (1981). Identification by analysing book reviews of current, notable English language textbooks, in library and information science. Library and Information Science, 19, 1–19.
Williams, P., Stevenson, I., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). The role and future of the monograph in arts and humanities research. Aslib Proceedings: New information perspectives, 61(1), 67–82.
Zuccala, A., & Bod, R. (2012). Book reviews as ‘Mega-Citations’: A fresh look at citation theory (see pdf). Proceedings In 17th international conference on science and technology indicators, STI 2012.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C. & Purnell, P.J. The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes. Scientometrics 98, 841–852 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1176-4
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1176-4