Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, the authors propose a definition of book publishers’ specialization-multidisciplinarity and apply the operative definition to a set of 1952 Spanish publishers in 16 fields of the Social Sciences and the Humanities. The definition of specialization-multidisciplinarity is made operative with an entropy-based indicator. The indicator was applied to a set of Spanish scholarly publishers. It was hypothesized that University Presses (UPs hereafter) were significantly more multidisciplinary (or less specialized) than the rest of the publishers according to the values of the indicator. Chi square tests show that the proportion of UPs among the most multidisciplinary publishers is significantly greater than randomly expected. For the settings of this study the hypothesis is confirmed with a p value < 0.01. At the level of discipline, the concentration of titles was studied using Gini Coefficient, finding differences between disciplines within the range of 0.5. The specific features of university presses are discussed as possible explanations for the observed differences in thematic specialization.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAUP. (2017). Association of American University Presses. About University presses. Online resource available at: http://www.aaupnet.org/about-aaup/about-university-presses.

  • Adams, J., & Testa, J. (2011). Thomson Reuters book citation index. In The 13th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (Vol. 1, pp. 13–18).

  • AEUP. Association of European University Presses. (2007). The need for AEUP. Online resource available at: http://www.aeup.eu/aeup/about/the-need-for-aeup/.

  • ANECA. (2008). Principios y orientaciones para la aplicación de los criterios de evaluación, http://www.aneca.es/content/download/10527/118089/version/1/file/academia_14_ppiosyorientaciones.pdf.

  • Carpenter, M. P. (1979). Similarity of Pratt’s measures of class concentration to the Gini index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 30(2), 108–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavarro, D., Tang, P., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and research on local issues: Evidence from a developing country. Research Evaluation, 23(3), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croyle, R. T. (2008). The National Cancer Institute’s transdisciplinary centers initiatives and the need for building a science of team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S90–S93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DILVE. (2017). Online resource available at: https://www.dilve.es/dilve/dilveweb/index_dilve.jsp.

  • Elsevier. (2013). Elsevier Announces its Scopus Books Titles Expansion program. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/science-and-technology/elsevier-announces-its-scopus-book-titles-expansion-program.

  • Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93, 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo. (2017). La edición académica española. Indicadores y características. Report available at: http://ilia.cchs.csic.es/SPI/spi-fgee/docs/EAEV1.pdf.

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2012). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gini, C. (1912). Variabilità e Mutuabilità. Contributo allo Studio delle Distribuzioni e delle Relazioni Statistiche. Bologna: C. Cuppini.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K. L., Stokols, D., Moser, R. P., Taylor, B. K., Thornquist, M. D., & Nebeling, L. C. (2008). The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S161–S172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2015). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics, 102(1), 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Web indicators for research evaluation, part 3: Books and non-standard outputs. El Profesional de la Información, 24(6), 724–736.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). “Books” and “book chapters” in the book citation index (BKCI) and science citation index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 49(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., & Speicher, L. (2016). New university presses in the UK: Accessing a mission. Learned Publishing, 29(S1), 320–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2017). Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in citation and reference dimensions: Knowledge importation and exportation taxonomy of journals. Scientometrics, 110(2), 617–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, Paul, & Stemmer, John. (1996). A reputational study of academic publishers. College and Research Libraries, 57(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_57_03_234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michavila, F. (dir.). (2012). La Universidad española en cifras. Madrid: CRUE, http://www.crue.org/.Publicaciones/Documents/UEC/LA_UNIVERSIDAD_ESPANOLA_EN_CIFRAS.pdf.

  • Mugabushaka, A. M., Kyriakou, A., & Papazoglou, T. (2016). Bibliometric indicators of interdisciplinarity: The potential of the Leinster–Cobbold diversity indices to study disciplinary diversity. Scientometrics, 107(2), 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, P. (1990). Specialization by university presses. Publishing Research Quarterly, 6(2), 3–15.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., & Chubin, D. E. (1985). An indicator of cross-disciplinary research. Scientometrics, 8, 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Cohen, A. S., Roessner, J. D., & Perreault, M. (2007). Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity. Scientometrics, 72(1), 117–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puuska, H.-M. (2014). Scholarly Publishing Patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between innovation studies and business & management. Research Policy, 41(7), 1262–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2010). Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics, 82(2), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A. (2016). Vision, mission, passion, and luck: The creation of a university press. Learned Publishing, 29(S1), 354–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. (2008). Scholarly monograph publishing in the 21st century: The future more than ever should be an open book. JEP: The Journal of Electronic Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0011.201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, J., & Grohmann, G. (2001). Citation rates, knowledge export and international visibility of dermatology journals listed and not listed in the Journal Citation Reports. Scientometrics, 50(3), 483–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. B. (2005). Books in the digital age: The transformation of academic and higher education publishing in Britain and the United States. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomov, D. T., & Mutafov, H. G. (1996). Comparative indicators of interdisciplinarity in modern science. Scientometrics, 37, 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., Miguel Campanario, J., & Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E. (2014). Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index. Online Information Review, 38(1), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, S., Khan, A., & Baur, L. A. (2015). A Framework to explore the knowledge structure of interdisciplinary research fields. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0123537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNE. (2014). Interview with Rafael Van Grieken, head of ANECA. Available at: http://www.une.es/media/Ou1/Image/webmayo2014/UNElibros%2028%20DIG.pdf.

  • Verleysen, F. (2016). Books in the social sciences and humanities: analyses of scholarly publication patterns in Flanders based on the VABB-SHW (Doctoral dissertation, University of Antwerp).

  • Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 428–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vugteveen, P., Lenders, R., & Van den Besselaar, P. (2014). The dynamics of interdisciplinary research fields: The case of river research. Scientometrics, 100(1), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., et al. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2014). Can we Rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Grant No. CSO2015-63693-P).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CSIC Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Jorge Mannana-Rodriguez & Elea Giménez-Toledo

Authors
  1. Jorge Mannana-Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elea Giménez-Toledo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Mannana-Rodriguez.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 List of the 20 publishers with the highest degree of multidisciplinarity
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mannana-Rodriguez, J., Giménez-Toledo, E. Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers. Scientometrics 114, 19–30 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2563-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2563-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation