Selection and Holdings of Small Publishers' Books in Oclc Libraries: A Study of the Influence of Reviews, Publishers, and Vendors

doi:10.1086/602470

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Estimating the audience level for library resources

O’Neill¹,

Connaway²,

Dickey³

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

WorldCat, OCLC's bibliographic database, identifies books and the libraries that hold them. The holdings provide detailed information about the type and number of libraries that have acquired the material. Using this information, it is possible to infer the type of audience for which the material is intended. A quantitative measure, the audience level, is derived from the types of libraries that have selected the resource. The audience level can be used to refine discovery, analyze collections, advise readers, and enhance reference services.

show abstract

Estimating the audience level for library resources

O’Neill¹,

Connaway²,

Dickey³

2008

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Book reviews in humanities research evaluations

Zuccala

Leeuwen

2011

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometric evaluations of research outputs in the Social Sciences and Humanities are challenging due to limitations associated with Web of Science data; however background literature shows that scholars are interested in stimulating improvements. We give special attention to book reviews processed by Web of Science History and Literature journals, focusing on two types: Type I (i.e., reference to book only) and Type II (i.e., reference to book and other scholarly sources). Bibliometric data are collected and analyzed for a large set of reviews ) to observe general publication patterns and patterns of citedness and co-citedness with books under review. Results show that reviews giving reference only to the book (Type I) are published more frequently, while reviews referencing the book and other works (Type II) are more likely to be cited. The referencing culture of the Humanities makes it difficult to understand patterns of co-citedness between books and review articles without further in-depth content analyses. Overall, citation counts to book reviews are typically low, but our data show that they are scholarly and do play a role in the scholarly communication system. In the disciplines of History and Literature, where book reviews are prominent, counting the number and type of reviews that a scholar produces throughout his/her is a positive step forward in research evaluations. We propose a new set of journal quality indicators for the purpose of monitoring their scholarly influence.

show abstract

A machine‐learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation

Zuccala

Someren

Bellen

2014

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A theory of “megacitation” is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human‐coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment‐based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine‐learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and “libcitations” (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.

show abstract

Selection and Holdings of Small Publishers' Books in Oclc Libraries: A Study of the Influence of Reviews, Publishers, and Vendors

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

Estimating the audience level for library resources

Estimating the audience level for library resources

Book reviews in humanities research evaluations

A machine‐learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators: Toward a theory of megacitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About