Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrizah, A., & Thelwall, M. (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 and Technology, 65(12), 2468–12508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmetric. How is the Altmetric Attention Score calculated? Altmetric.com. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from, https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-score-calculated.

  • Baird, L. M., & Oppenhei, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20, 2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Book Citation Index. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from, http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/bookcitationindex/.

  • Cabezas-Clavijo, A., Robinson-García, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Mikulka, T., Gumpenberger, C., Wemisch, A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). Most borrowed is most cited? Library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.1488.pdf.

  • Chen, K. H., Tang, M. C., Wang, C. M., & Hsiang, J. (2015). Exploring alternative metrics of scholarly performance in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan. Scientometrics, 102(1), 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, P. S. (2016). Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature? Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 814–829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015). Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 2003–2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erfanmanesh, M., Noorhidawati, A., & Abrizah, A. (2019). What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’ s books. Scientometrics, 121(1), 521–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E. (2020). Why books are important in the scholarly communication system in social sciences and humanities. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 2–8.

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C. E., et al. (2019). Taking scholarly books into account, part II: A comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding. Scientometrics, 118, 233–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P. S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Twitter as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027–1042.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can Choice reviews be a useful source? In A. A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. A. Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 59–70). Istanbul: Bogaziçi University Printhouse.

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 566–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Can microsoft academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books? Journal of Informetrics, 12, 972–984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2017). Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. JASIST, 68, 2004–2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (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, 62(11), 2147–2164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., et al. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116, 463–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulczycki, E., & Korytkowski, P. (2020). Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03376-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lariviere, V., Archambault, E., Gingras, Y., & Vignola-Gagne, E. (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, 57(8), 997–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., & Halevi, G. (2015). Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(10), 1988–2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). A concise guide to market research. The process, data, and methods using IBM SPSS statistics. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nan, X., Li, M., & Shi, J. (2020). Using altmetrics for assessing impact of highly-cited books in Chinese Book Citation Index. Scientometrics, 122, 1651–1669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Poledníková, E. (2014). Regional classification: The case of visegrad four. Ekonomická revue-Central European Review of Economic, 14(17), 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from, http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.

  • Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68, 2037–2062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J. (2017). The selection process for the Book Citation Index in Web of Science. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from, https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/essays/selection-process-book-citation-index-web-science/.

  • Thelwall, M. (2020). The pros and cons of the use of altmetrics in research assessment. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 3036–3050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Gorraiz, J., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2018). The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 691–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). Filling the citation gap: Measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX. Scientometrics, 113, 1371–1384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, R., Robinson-Garcia, N., et al. (2013). Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 412–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236–244.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., et al. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083–1096.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., & Zuccala, A. A. (2018). Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(12), 1502–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S., & Han, R. (2015). Breadth and depth of citation distribution. Information Processing and Management, 51(2), 130–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yim, O., & Ramdeen, K. T. (2015). Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 11(1), 8–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C., & Zhou, Q. (2020). Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents. Journal of Informetrics, 14(2), 101032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Q., Zhang, C., Zhao, S. X., & Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1435–1455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A. A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320–336.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Stacy Konkiel from Altmetric.com for data support. This research is funded by the National Social Science Fund Key Project of P.R. China (17ATQ009) and the double first-class discipline of the Ministry of Education of China “Library, Information and Data Science”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Siluo Yang & Fan Qi

  2. Peking University Library, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China

    Xin Xing

  3. São Paulo State University (UNESP), Av. Hygino Muzzi Filho, 737, Marília, São Paulo, 17525-900, Brazil

    Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio

Authors
  1. Siluo Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xin Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fan Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Xing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Xing, X., Qi, F. et al. Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators. Scientometrics 126, 1101–1123 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation