Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is the Diffusion of Books in Library Holdings a Reliable Indicator in Research Assessment?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

Abstract

Books are a crucial product of research in SSH. The evaluation of quality of books is currently managed through peer expert review, which is based on a full reading of their content. In the literature there was the suggestion to use data from catalogues to obtain indicators to be used in an aggregate way, for example to estimate the diffusion and readership of books. However, the literature does not offer empirical analysis of the role, potential and limitations over a range of disciplines. The chapter presents an overview of the survey carried out in Italy of a sample of books in two fields, History of books, Bibliography, Library science and History of political institutions. The study offers a critical analysis of the reliability of the diffusion of monographs in library holdings as indicator to use in research assessment. Data on the diffusion of books in a large number of libraries are obtained and cleaned. Special attention is also devoted to the analysis of the selection, acquisition procedures and management of library collections, connected with the research evaluation process.

Maria Teresa Biagetti is the author of Part 1.

Antonella Iacono is the author of Part 2.

Antonella Trombone is the author of Part 3.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/. Presently, the Web of Science platform is managed by Clarivate Analytics.

  2. 2.

    http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/scopus

  3. 3.

    The Book Citation Index contains 60,000 books in Science, Social Sciences and Humanities, and every year it adds 10,000 books. In the year 2014, the monographs in Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities accounted for 61%, and monographs in Natural Sciences 39%; Social Sciences presented a broader coverage than Arts and Humanities. http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/BKCI-SelectionEssay_web.pdf

  4. 4.

    The statistical examination of the relationships between book citations in the scientific journals covered by Scopus and the presence in libraries made it possible to highlight a significant connection between citations and libcitation, when there is a portion of books present in many libraries but with a low number of citations. The opposite case (high level of citations and low libcitation level) is less frequent. Analysing the type of the books, the authors found that a significant share of books with few citations but high presence in libraries consists in dictionaries and reference books. This indicates that citations and the presences of books in library holdings quantify different aspects.

  5. 5.

    The Library of Congress OPAC shows the data concerning the acquisitions of books in the MARC fields 925 and 955 (see Chapter Quality evaluation of online library catalogues, advanced discovery tools and linked data technologies). After our survey, all the monographs of History of books, Bibliography and Library Science, were found to have been acquired by the Library of Congress. We did not consider it necessary to continue the verification with the monograph of History of political institutions.

  6. 6.

    Milan Braidense National library, Turin University National library, Venice Marciana National library, Naples National library; Rome Sapienza University library system, Venice Ca′ Foscari University library system, Milan State University library system. The survey of the data concerning gifts was made possible thanks to the courtesy and cooperation of the Directors and some librarians of the mentioned libraries. It was not possible to carry out a survey of donated copies in the foreign libraries of our sample.

  7. 7.

    http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp

  8. 8.

    http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php

  9. 9.

    This regulation defines a new procedure for the recruiting of university professors based on scientific qualification criteria. A national commission evaluates and assesses the candidates’ scientific qualification.

  10. 10.

    http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp

  11. 11.

    http://www.casalini.it/ilibri/index.asp

  12. 12.

    In our research we were inspired by ANVUR criteria expressed on the occasion of VQR 2004–2010 (and only partially by those announced for VQR 2011–2014), the 2012–13 ASN, and partly also by the criteria adopted for SUA- RD. The major difference in relation to the criteria adopted in the ministerial assessment is that in our project we decided to take into account both printed and digital books (e-books).

  13. 13.

    In the absence of recent international standards, we decided to refer to ISO 5127:2001 Information and documentation - Vocabulary, (revised in 2010 and recently revised in 2015).

  14. 14.

    The decision to exclude the bibliographic records about PhD thesis, originated from the observation that the presence on SBN OPAC of this type of monograph is sporadic and uneven.

  15. 15.

    The principle of the “canon” is expressed by Solimine (1999b).

  16. 16.

    An analysis of library collections from the modern age to the digital library can be found in Kempf (2013) and in the following Kempf (2014).

  17. 17.

    On the application of PDA in academic libraries see Vivarelli (2015). See also Vivarelli (2007), Bridges (2016), Goedeken (2015), Walters (2012).

  18. 18.

    For an analysis of data obtainable from the interactions between users and the catalogue of the New York Public Library, see Trombone (2016), post-print published on Academia.edu.

  19. 19.

    Two reports, the UK Survey of Academics 2012 and 2015, conducted by Ithaka S + R, Jisc, and Research Libraries UK (RLUK), report in detail data for the printed monographs compared to ebooks; the exact opposite situation occurs for e-journals, which have now replaced traditional newspapers: Jisc et al. (2012, 2015).

  20. 20.

    The use of printed monographs in academic collections is analysed in Showers (2015).

  21. 21.

    On the contents of the planning documents and on gifts see also Solimine (1999a, b) p. 15–17; in IFLA section Acquisition and collection development see also Cassell et al. (2008).

  22. 22.

    On the political value of the collections card in library science reference should be made to Solimine (2008).

  23. 23.

    The Research Libraries Group (RLG) was founded in 1975 by the New York Public Library and Columbia, Harvard and Yale universities. RLG grew to over 150 research libraries and worked to provide information discovery services, develop and operate collaborative programs, and create and promote relevant standards and practices. RLG became a part of OCLC in 2006.

  24. 24.

    Three relevant English texts were translated in Italian: Association of research libraries (1993); the IFLA Guidelines of 2001 translated by Commissione Nazionale biblioteche delle Università e della Ricerca AIB ed (2001) and Bushing et al. (2008).

  25. 25.

    It takes its name from Kenneth Whittaker, author of Systematic evaluation. Methods and sources for assessing books, London, Clive Bingley, 1982 (Whittaker 1982), also available in the Italian edition: Whittaker (2002).

  26. 26.

    Reasons and results achieved with the approval plan are shown in Kempf (2006); the English version is also available on the website of the Associazione Italiana Biblioteche, Outsourcing projects and approval plans. Ten years of experience in a large research library: a case study of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek <http://www.aib.it/aib/commiss/cnur/boekempf.htm3>. See also Brantley (2010), Mueller (2005).

  27. 27.

    An Italian academic experience is described by Di Girolamo and Pistelli (2005).

  28. 28.

    The web page is edited by Rossana Morriello <http://www.aib.it/aib/lis/gest.htm>

  29. 29.

    In the Italian context, for a case of clarity in the adoption of an approval plan see the Economics and Law Library, University of Brescia, <https://www.unibs.it/ateneo/amministrazione/servizio-sistema-bibliotecario-di-ateneo/uoc-acquisizione-risorse-bibliografiche>

References

  • American Library Association, Collection Management and Development Committee. (1979). In D. L. Perkins (Ed.), Guidelines for collection development. Chicago: American Library Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of research libraries. (1993). Manuale conspectus. Roma: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Roma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantley, J. S. (2010). Approval plans, discipline change, and the importance of human mediated book selection. Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services, 34(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridges, K. (Ed.). (2016). Customer-based collection development. London: Facet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullis, D. R., & Smith, L. (2004). Looking back, moving forward in the digital age: A review of the collection management and development literature, 2004–8. Library Resources & Technical Services, 55(4), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushing, M., Davis, B., & Powell, N. (2008). Il metodo Conspectus. Roma: Associazione italiana biblioteche.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, K. A., Johnson, S., Mansfield, J., et al. (2008). Gifts for the collections: Guidelines for libraries. The Hague: IFLA. Available at http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/professional-report/112.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Commissione Nazionale biblioteche delle Università e della Ricerca AIB. (ed) (2001). Linee guida per una carta delle collezioni usando il modello Conspectus. Available at http://www.aib.it/aib/commiss/cnur/iflacons.htm3. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Di Girolamo, M., & Pistelli, M. G. (2005). EDI for acquisitions in libraries: a solution (still) for few? The case of the Library of the Università di Milano Bicocca. In: Current issues in collection development: Italian and global perspectives, International conference on collection development, Bologna, 18th February 2005. Available at http://www.aib.it/aib/commiss/cnur/boedigir.htm3. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Goedeken, E. A., & Lawson, K. (2015). The past, present, and future of demand-driven acquisitions in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 76(2), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerra, L., & Pellizzari, E. (2001). Approval Plan in EDI: il futuro delle acquisizioni in biblioteca? Bollettino AIB, 41(1), 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Section on Acquisition and Collection Development. (2001). Guidelines for a collection development policy using the Conspectus model. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/archive/VII/s14/nd1/gcdp-e.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Jisc, RLUK, Ithaka. (2012). UK survey of academics 2012. Available at http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-jisc-rluk-uk-survey-of-academics-2012/. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Jisc, RLUK Ithaka. (2015). UK survey of academics 2015. Available at http://www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/uk-survey-of-academics-2015/. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Kay, D., Stephens, O., & DeNoyer, A. (2014). Last copy services: what are the opportunities and benefits of collaboration? Available at https://www.iii.com/sites/default/files/IIILastCopyServicesConversation3.pdf. Accessed 16 Jul 2016.

  • Kempf, K. (2006). Progetti di outsourcing e approval plans. 10 anni di esperienza in una grande biblioteca di ricerca. Il caso della Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. In: Current Issues in Collection Development: Italian and Global Perspectives. Atti del convegno internazionale sullo sviluppo delle raccolte, Bologna (pp. 137–148).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, K. (2013). Der Sammlungsgedanke im digitalen Zeitalter. L’idea della collezione nell’età digitale. Fiesole: Casalini libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, K. (2014). Bibliotheken ohne Bestand? Bestandsaufbau unter digitalen Vorzeichen. Bibliothek. Forschung und Praxis, 38(3), 365–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine-Clark, M. (2010). Developing a multiformat demand-driven acquisition model. Collection Management, 35(39), 205–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linmans, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link. Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morriello, R. (2006). Acquisizioni tramite approval plan. Outsourcing o nuova opportunità per i bibliotecari? Biblioteche Oggi, 24(1), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. (2005). Approval plans and faculty selection: Are they compatible? Library Collections, Acquisitions & Technical Services, 29, 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. L., & Williams, S. R. (2004). Collection development embraces the digital age: A review of the literature, 1997–2003. Library Resources and Technical Services, 48(4), 273–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandy, J. H. (Ed.). (2013). Approval plans: Issues and innovations. New York, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. (2012). When patrons call the shots: Patron-driven acquisition at Brigham Young University. Collection Building, 31(1), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, L., Cassidy, E. D., Elmore, E., et al. (2011). Headfirst into patron-driven acquisition pool: A comparison of librarian selections versus patron purchases. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 23(1), 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Showers, B. (Ed.). (2015). Data-driven collections management. In Library analytics and metrics. Using data to drive decisions and services (pp. 23–46). London: Facet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solimine, G. (1999a). Le raccolte delle biblioteche. Milano: Editrice Bibliografica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solimine, G. (1999b). Riflessioni sull’esigenza di un canone biblioteconomico per la gestione delle collezioni. Accademie e Biblioteche d’Italia, 67(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solimine, G. (2008). La biblioteca. Scenari, culture e pratiche di servizio. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. L. (2012). Disruption and disintermediation. A review of the collection development and management literature, 2009–10. Library Resources and Technical Service, 56(3), 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Library catalog analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in economics. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trombone, A. (2016). La gestione del catalogo partecipato: il ruolo dei bibliotecari nelle dinamiche d’interazione tra dati e utenti. In: Relazioni del Convegno Stelline 2016. Bibliotecari al tempo di Google. Profili, competenze, formazione (pp. 81–86). Milano: Editrice Bibliografica. Postprint available at Academia.edu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli, M. (2007). La costruzione delle raccolte. Teorie e tecniche per lo sviluppo e la gestione delle collezioni. In G. Solimine & P. G. Weston (Eds.), Biblioteconomia: principi e questioni (pp. 39–59). Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vivarelli, M. (2015). Formazione, sviluppo, integrazione delle collezioni documentarie. In G. Solimine & P. G. Weston (Eds.), Biblioteche e biblioteconomia. Principi e questioni (pp. 205–227). Roma: Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, W. H. (2012). Patron-driven acquisition and the educational mission of the academic library. LRTS, 56(3), 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., et al. (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 

  • Whittaker, K. (1982). Systematic evaluation. Methods and sources for assessing books. London: Clive Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker K. (2002). Metodi e fonti per la valutazione sistematica dei documenti (P. Lucchini & R. Morriello (Eds.). Manziana (Roma): Vecchiarelli. English edition: Whittaker K (1982). Systematic evaluation. Methods and sources for assessing books. London: Clive Bingley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. J., & Strauch, K. (Eds.). (1991). Collection assessment. A look at the RLG Conspectus. New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: scholarly use versus “perceived cultural benefit”. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics. Vienna, July 15–20 (pp. 353–360).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Maria Teresa Biagetti

  2. Biella Public Library, Biella, Italy

    Antonella Iacono

  3. University of Basilicata, Central University Library, Potenza, Italy

    Antonella Trombone

Authors
  1. Maria Teresa Biagetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonella Iacono
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonella Trombone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Teresa Biagetti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DESTEC, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea Bonaccorsi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Biagetti, M.T., Iacono, A., Trombone, A. (2018). Is the Diffusion of Books in Library Holdings a Reliable Indicator in Research Assessment?. In: Bonaccorsi, A. (eds) The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68553-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68554-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation