Scholarly publishers’ indicators: Prestige, specialization, and review systems of scholarly book publishers

Giménez-Toledo, Elea; Mañana-Rodríguez, Jorge; Artigas, Carlos Miguel Tejada

doi:10.3145/epi.2015.nov.18

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus far, little research attention has been given to the link between publisher specialization and research evaluation (e.g., Giménez-Toledo, Mañana-Rodríguez, & Tejada-Artigas, 2015;Mannana-Rodriguez & Giménez-Toledo, 2018), though scholars primarily understand that "few presses can successfully publish in all fields" (Parsons, 1990, p. 3). However, when comparisons are made between commercial publishers and university presses, it is the latter that are less likely to become fully specialized.…”

Section: Q6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Zuccala

Pölönen

Guns

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares publisher ratings to the visibility and impact of individual books, based on a 2017 dataset from three Nordic PRFS systems (Denmark, Norway, and Finland). Although there are Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) for journals, there is no similar indicator for book publishers. National publisher lists are used instead to account for the general 'quality' of books, leading to institutional rewards. But, just as the JIF is not recommended as proxy for the ‘citedness’ of a paper, a publisher rating is also not recommended as proxy for the impact of an individual book. We introduce a small fish in a big pond versus big fish in a small pond metaphor, where a ‘fish’ is a book and ‘the pond’ represents its publishing house. We investigate how books fit on this metaphorical fish and pond continuum, using WorldCat holdings (visibility) and Google scholar citations (impact), and test other variables to determine their predictive value with respect to these two indicators. Our statistics show that publisher levels do not have predictive value, when other variables are held constant. This has implications for PRFSs and book evaluations in general, as well as ongoing developments related to a newly proposed international publisher registry.

show abstract

Section: Q6mentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Zuccala

Pölönen

Guns

et al. 2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet another area of interest has been the study of publisher specialization (Giménez-Toledo et al, 2015;Mannana-Rodriguez & Giménez-Toledo, Torres-Salinas et al, 2012). To understand specialization, one approach has been to take a specific unit of analysis, like the book chapter and develop mapping techniques designed to visualize their disciplinary profiles (Torres-Salinas et al, 2013).…”

Section: Publisher Prestige or Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewing, Indicating, and Counting Books for Modern Research Evaluation Systems

Zuccala

Robinson-García

2019

Springer Handbooks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, we focus on the specialists who have helped to improve the conditions for book assessments in research evaluation exercises, with empirically based data and insights supporting their greater integration. Our review highlights the research carried out by four types of expert communities, referred to as the monitors, the subject classifiers, the indexers and the indicator constructionists. Many challenges lie ahead for scholars affiliated with these communities, particularly the latter three. By acknowledging their unique, yet interrelated roles, we show where the greatest potential is for both quantitative and qualitative indicator advancements in book-inclusive evaluation systems.

show abstract

“…Two of us share a background in the field of Library and Information Science, while one comes from a complementary background in both Computer Science and Law. Our mutual interest in scholarly books stems from a series of publications each has produced concerning editorial processes and business models in publishing, including the search for quality indicators relevant to books (Giménez-Toledo and Román-Román, 2009;Giménez-Toledo et al, 2012, 2015, the analysis of book reviews, library holding counts and indexing frameworks for evaluating books as "families of works" (Zuccala et al, 2014(Zuccala et al, , 2018White and Zuccala, 2018) and the evaluation of legal monographs, reflecting law as a research field with a highly professional and national orientation .…”

Section: Guest Editorial Teammentioning

confidence: 99%

Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities

Zuccala

Giménez-Toledo

Peruginelli

2018

AJIM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly publishers’ indicators: Prestige, specialization, and review systems of scholarly book publishers

Cited by 10 publications

References 5 publications

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond?

Reviewing, Indicating, and Counting Books for Modern Research Evaluation Systems

Scholarly books and their evaluation context in the social sciences and humanities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About