Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX
- 705 Downloads
More than 5 years after their emergence, altmetrics are still seen as a promise to complement traditional citation-based indicators. However, no study has focused on their potential usefulness to capture the impact of scholarly books. While recent literature shows that citation indicators cannot fully capture the impact of books, other studies have suggested alternative indicators such as usage, publishers’ prestige or library holdings. In this paper, we calculate 18 indicators which range from altmetrics to library holdings, views, downloads or citations to the production of monographs of a Spanish university using the bibliometric suite PlumX from EBSCO. The objective of the study is to adopt a multidimensional perspective on the analysis of books and understand the level of complementarity between these different indicators. Also, we compare the overview offered by this range of indicators when applied to monographs with the traditional bibliometric perspective focused on journal articles and citation impact. We observe a low presence of altmetric indicators for monographs, even lower than for journal articles and a predominance of library holdings, confirming this indicator as the most promising one towards the analysis of the impact of books.
KeywordsBooks Monographs Altmetrics Usage metrics Plum analytics Citation analysis
The authors thank Stephan Buettgen (EBSCO) for granted trial access to PlumX. Nicolas Robinson-Garcia is currently supported by a Juan de la Cierva-Formacion grant from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.
- Cabezas-Clavijo, A., Robinson-García, N., Torres-Salinas, D., Jiménez-Contreras, E., Mikulka, T., Gumpenberger, C., Wemisch, A., & Gorraiz, J. (2013). Most borrowed is most cited? Library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, pp. 1237–1252.Google Scholar
- Eve, M. P. (2014). Monographs. In Open access and the humanities (pp. 86–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Haustein, S. (2014). Readership metrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 327–344). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015a). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source? In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics, pp. 59–70.Google Scholar
- Priem, J. (2010). I like the term #articlelevelmetrics, but it fails to imply *diversity* of measures. Lately, I’m liking #altmetrics. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/jasonpriem/status/25844968813.
- Priem, J. (2014). Altmetrics. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 263–288). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rafols, I., Ciarli, T., van Zwanenberg, P., & Stirling, A. (2012). Towards indicators for ‘opening up’ science and technology policy. In Proceedings of 17 th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 663–674).Google Scholar
- REF (2014). Results and submissions in Research Excellence Framework. http://results.ref.ac.uk/.
- White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., et al. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management.. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.