Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame

Just as citations to a book can be counted, so can that book's libcitations—the number of libraries in a consortium that hold it. These holdings counts per title can be obtained from the consortium's union catalog, such as OCLC's WorldCat. Librarians seeking to serve their customers well must be attuned to various kinds of merit in books. The result in WorldCat is a great variation in the libcitations particular books receive. The higher a title's count (or percentile), the more famous it is—either absolutely or within a subject class. Degree of fame also indicates cultural impact, allowing that further documentation of impact may be needed. Using WorldCat data, we illustrate high, medium, and low degrees of fame with 170 titles published during 1990–1995 or 2001–2006 and spanning the 10 main Dewey classes. We use their total libcitation counts or their counts from members of the Association of Research Libraries, or both, as of late 2011. Our analysis of their fame draws on the recognizability of their authors, the extent to which they and their authors are covered by Wikipedia, and whether they have movie or TV versions. Ordinal scales based on Wikipedia coverage and on libcitation counts are very significantly associated.

[1]  Howard D. White Better Than Brief Tests: Coverage Power Tests of Collection Strength , 2008 .

[2]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  Fletcher T. H. Cole,et al.  Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A review of the literature on citation impact indicators , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[5]  Björn Hammarfelt Beyond coverage : Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities , 2016 .

[6]  T. Rajaretnam,et al.  Statistics for social sciences , 2016 .

[7]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Daniel Torres-Salinas,et al.  PlumX As a Potential Tool to Assess the Macroscopic Multidimensional Impact of Books , 2017, Front. Res. Metr. Anal..

[9]  L. Bornmann,et al.  How good is research really? , 2013, EMBO reports.

[10]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Arts and humanities research evaluation: no metrics please, just data , 2015, J. Documentation.

[12]  William Denton On Dentographs, A New Method of Visualizing Library Collections , 2012 .

[13]  Alesia Zuccalá,et al.  Correlating Libcitations and Citations in the Humanities with WorldCat and Scopus Data , 2015, ISSI.

[14]  Daniel Torres-Salinas,et al.  Library Catalog Analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in Economics , 2009, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  A machine‐learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[16]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Sven E. Hug,et al.  The future of research assessment in the humanities: bottom-up assessment procedures , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[18]  Rens Bod,et al.  Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Dietmar Wolfram,et al.  Citer analysis as a measure of research impact: library and information science as a case study , 2010, Scientometrics.

[20]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  The Complexity of Measuring the Impact of Books , 2016 .

[21]  A. J. M. Linmans,et al.  Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link , 2010, Scientometrics.

[22]  Chengzhi Zhang,et al.  Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining , 2016, Scientometrics.

[23]  Melissa Adler,et al.  Transcending Library Catalogs: A Comparative Study of Controlled Terms in Library of Congress Subject Headings and User-Generated Tags in LibraryThing for Transgender Books , 2009 .

[24]  Alesia A. Zuccala,et al.  Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings : scholarly use versus 'perceived cultural benefit' (RIP) , 2013 .

[25]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Alternative Metrics for Book Impact Assessment: Can Choice Reviews be a Useful Source? , 2015, ISSI.

[26]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[27]  Michael Thelwall,et al.  Web Indicators for Research Evaluation: A Practical Guide , 2016, Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services.