Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Citations are commonly used to measure academic impacts of scientific publications, including books. However, citation frequencies of books are single numerical evaluation metrics. It neglects details about books (e.g. contents), which may lead to the decline in comprehensiveness of evaluation results. Hence, fine-grained mining on books’ citation information to integrate frequency metrics and content metrics can obtain more reliable evaluation results. Books’ citation literatures (i.e. literatures cited books) present citation frequencies of books, and reflect citation intentions, topics and domains simultaneously. Existing research focused on analysing citation frequencies, authors or citation contexts of citation literatures to conduct citation analysis. It may be costly for collecting citation contexts and neglected latent information of citation literatures, such as impact scopes or topics of books reflected by citation literatures. Therefore, in this paper, we conducted fine-grained analysis on books’ citation literatures to assess whether citation literatures could be systematically used for indicators of books’ wider impacts. Specifically, we firstly collected books and corresponding information about their citation literatures. Then, we extracted multi-dimensional metrics via multi-granularity mining on citation literatures, and got assessment results by integrating content-level and frequency-level metrics. Finally, we compared assessment results based on citation literatures and existing metrics for assessing books’ impacts to verify assessment results. Experimental results infer that citation literatures are a promising source for book impact assessment, especially books’ academic impacts.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://xueshu.baidu.com/.

  2. http://xueshu.baidu.com/usercenter/show/baiducas?cmd=intro.

  3. https://www.amazon.cn/gp/book/all_category.

  4. https://www.amazon.cn.

References

  • Adriaanse, L. S., & Rensleigh, C. (2013). Web of science, Scopus and Google Scholar: A content comprehensiveness comparison. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 727–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barilan, J. (2010). Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS. Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chien-Lih, H. (2005). An elementary derivation of Euler’s series for the arctangent function. The Mathematical Gazette, 89(516), 469–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • China, T. S. A. O. (2009). Chinese discipline classification and code GB/T13745-2009.

  • Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995). Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3), 273–297.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2014). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. K., & Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Alvarez, M., Soriano, J. M. G., & Martínez-Barco, P. (2017). Citation function, polarity and influence classification. Natural Language Engineering, 23(4), 561–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. D., Blei, D. M., & Bach, F. R. (2010). Online learning for latent Dirichlet allocation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 23, 856–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., & Yuan, B. (2012). Mining Google scholar citations: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent computing (pp. 182–189).

  • Jacsó, P. (2005). Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review, 29(2), 208–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jian, W., Bart, T., & Wolfgang, G. (2015). Interdisciplinarity and impact: Distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015a). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source? In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 59–70).

  • Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015b). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2016). Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 68(8), 2004–2016.

    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 

  • Levine-Clark, M., & Gil, E. L. (2009). A comparative citation analysis of web of science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(1), 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G. (2001). Evaluation of books as research outputs in history of medicine. Research Evaluation, 10(2), 89–95.

    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 American Society for Information Science & Technology, 49(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Burnham, J. F., Lemley, T., & Britton, R. M. (2010). Citation analysis: Comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 7(3), 196–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maity, S. K., Panigrahi, A., & Mukherjee, A. (2018). Analyzing social book reading behavior on Goodreads and how it predicts Amazon best sellers. In Proceedings of the international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (pp. 211–235).

  • McCain, K. W., & Salvucci, L. J. (2006). How influential is Brooks’ law? A longitudinal citation context analysis of Frederick Brooks’ the mythical man-month. Journal of Information Science, 32(3), 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mika, S., Ratsch, G., Weston, J., Scholkopf, B., & Mullers, K. R. (1999). Fisher discriminant analysis with kernels. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE workshop on neural networks for signal processing (pp. 41–48).

  • Nie, H. Z., Pan, L., Qiao, Y., & Yao, X. P. (2009). Comprehensive fuzzy evaluation for transmission network planning scheme based on entropy weight method. Power System Technology, 33(11), 278–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajesh, P., Vedika, G., Kumar, S. V., David, P., David, P., Kumar, S. V., et al. (2018). Book impact assessment: A quantitative and text-based exploratory analysis. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems., 34(5), 3101–3110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148), 688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Abrizah, A. (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 & Technology, 65(12), 2498–2508.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., Campanario, J. M., & Lópezcózar, E. D. (2013). 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 

  • Tsay, M.-Y., Shen, T.-M., & Liang, M.-H. (2016). A comparison of citation distributions of journals and books on the topic “information society”. Scientometrics, 106(2), 475–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (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, 60(6), 1083–1096.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & Cornacchia, R. (2016). Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 108(1), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccalá, A., & Leeuwen, T. V. (2014). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 1979–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2019). Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems. In Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 715–728).

  • Zuccala, A., Someren, M. V., & Bellen, M. V. (2014). A machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 65(11), 2248–2260.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the National Social Science Fund Project (No. 19CTQ031).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Network and New Media, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, 210023, China

    Qingqing Zhou

  2. Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China

    Chengzhi Zhang

Authors
  1. Qingqing Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chengzhi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengzhi Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, Q., Zhang, C. Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures. Scientometrics 125, 1923–1948 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03676-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03676-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation