Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries

For academic book authors and the institutions assessing their research performance, the relevance of books is undisputed. In spite of this, the absence of comprehensive international databases covering the items and information needed for the assessment of this type of publication has urged several European countries to develop custom-built information systems for the registration of scholarly books, as well as weighting and funding allocation procedures. For the first time, these systems make the assessment of books as a research output feasible. The present paper summarizes the main features of the registration and/or assessment systems developed in five European countries/regions (Spain, Denmark, Flanders, Finland and Norway), focusing on the processes involved in the collection and processing of data on book publications, their weighting, as well as the application in the context of research assessment and funding.

[1]  Diana Hicks,et al.  One size doesn't fit all: On the co-evolution of national evaluation systems and social science publishing , 2012 .

[2]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  The impact factor's Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  J. Hartley.  Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines: Research Articles , 2006 .

[4]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar , 2010, Scientometrics.

[5]  E. Garfield.  Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? , 1996 .

[6]  G. S. Mahalakshmi,et al.  Journal Impact Factor: A Measure of Quality or Popularity? , 2011, IICAI.

[7]  Mohammad Hossein Biglu,et al.  The influence of references per paper in the SCI to Impact Factors and the Matthew Effect , 2007, Scientometrics.

[8]  Björn Hammarfelt,et al.  Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities , 2014, Scientometrics.

[9]  Madeleine Stern.  Characteristics of the Literature of Literary Scholarship. , 1983 .

[10]  Alesia Zuccalá,et al.  The Evaluation of Scholarly Books as a Research Output. Current Developments in Europe , 2015, ISSI.

[11]  Gunnar Sivertsen,et al.  Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator , 2012 .

[12]  John Cullars,et al.  Citation Characteristics of Monographs in the Fine Arts , 1992, The Library Quarterly.

[13]  Fletcher T. H. Cole,et al.  Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences , 2009 .

[14]  Hanna-Mari Puuska,et al.  Scholarly Publishing Patterns in Finland - A comparison of disciplinary groups , 2014 .

[15]  Ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise 2001 – the Patterns of University Status and Panel Membership , 2005 .

[16]  Tim C. E. Engels,et al.  The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW) , 2014 .

[17]  Jim Taylor,et al.  The Assessment of Research Quality in UK Universities: Peer Review or Metrics? , 2011 .

[18]  J. Schneider.  An Outline of the Bibliometric Indicator Used for Performance-Based Funding of Research Institutions in Norway , 2009 .

[19]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  A Bibliometric Study of Reference Literature in the Sciences and Social Sciences , 1999, Inf. Process. Manag..

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

[21]  Kaare Aagaard,et al.  How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system , 2015 .

[22]  Tim C. E. Engels,et al.  The representation of the social sciences and humanities in the Web of Science—a comparison of publication patterns and incentive structures in Flanders and Norway (2005–9) , 2012 .

[23]  Kathryn La Barre,et al.  Mickey Mouse and Milton: book publishing in the humanities , 2004, Learn. Publ..

[24]  Roberto Cornacchia,et al.  Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[26]  Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras,et al.  Bibliometric Indicators for Publishers: Data processing, indicators and interpretation , 2014, ArXiv.

[27]  H. Moed.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation (Information Science & Knowledge Management) , 2005 .

[28]  E. Giménez-Toledo,et al.  Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey , 2013 .

[29]  Kaare Aagaard,et al.  Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator , 2015 .

[30]  D. Hicks.  Performance-based university research funding systems , 2012 .

[31]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[33]  Birger Larsen,et al.  Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential , 2011, Scientometrics.

[34]  Jennifer Thompson,et al.  The Death of the Scholarly Monograph in the Humanities? Citation Patterns in Literary Scholarship , 2002 .

[35]  E. Garfield.  The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[36]  John Cullars,et al.  Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy , 1998 .

[37]  Richard Heinzkill,et al.  Characteristics of References in Selected Scholarly English Literary Journals , 1980, The Library Quarterly.

[38]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Edited Volumes, Monographs, and , 2012 .

[39]  Eric H. J. Spruyt,et al.  Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[40]  Peter Ingwersen,et al.  Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12 , 2014, Scientometrics.

[41]  Nicoline Frølich,et al.  MULTI‐LAYERED ACCOUNTABILITY. PERFORMANCE‐BASED FUNDING OF UNIVERSITIES , 2011 .

[42]  E. Giménez-Toledo,et al.  Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: a review and a study towards a model of evaluation , 2009 .

[43]  Yu-Wei Chang,et al.  Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[44]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. , 2015, Nature.

[45]  Linda Butler,et al.  Extending citation analysis to non-source items , 2006, Scientometrics.

[46]  Tim C. E. Engels,et al.  A label for peer-reviewed books , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[47]  James Hartley,et al.  Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[48]  Stephen J. Sharp.  The Research Assessment Exercises, 1992-2001: Patterns across Time and Subjects. , 2004 .

[49]  Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge,et al.  Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor , 2008, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[50]  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..

[51]  Jesper W. Schneider,et al.  Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level , 2016 .

[52]  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.

[53]  魏屹东,et al.  Scientometrics , 2018, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[54]  D. Hicks.  The Four Literatures of Social Science , 2004 .

[55]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key , 2004, Scientometrics.

[56]  Philippe Baveye,et al.  Battling the paper glut. , 2010, Science.

[57]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Book reviews in humanities research evaluations , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[58]  Charles Oppenheim,et al.  Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise, part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music) , 2008, Inf. Res..

[59]  Mounir Errami,et al.  Déjà vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[61]  M. BONITZ,et al.  Characteristics and impact of the matthew effect for countries , 1997, Scientometrics.