Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aagaard, K., Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2015). Impacts of performance-based research funding systems: The case of the Norwegian Publication Indicator. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aagaard, K., Bloch, C. W., Schneider, J. W., Henriksen, D., Ryan, T. K., & Lauridsen, P. S. (2014). Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator: Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse, Aarhus Universitet. http://www.uhr.no/documents/Evaluering_af_den_norske_publiceringsindikator.pdf.

  • Adams, J., & Testa, J. (2011). Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), The 13th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (pp. 13–18). Durban: ISSI, Leiden University and University of Zululand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Pölönen, J. (2012). Classification of scientific publication channels: Final report of the Publication Forum project (2010–2012). Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. http://www.tsv.fi/files/yleinen/publication_forum_project_final_report.pdf.

  • Bibliographic Indicator. https://bfi.fi.dk/Publication/NationalAnalysis. Viewed 19.01.2016.

  • Biglu, M. H. (2008). The influence of references per paper in the SCI to Impact Factors and the Matthew Effect. Scientometrics, 74(3), 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv047.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonitz, M., Bruckner, E., & Scharnhorst, A. (1997). Characteristics and impact of the Matthew effect for countries. Scientometrics, 40(3), 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, B., & La Barre, K. (2004). Mickey Mouse and Milton: Book publishing in the humanities. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullars, J. (1992). Citation characteristics of monographs in the fine arts. Library Quarterly, 62, 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullars, J. M. (1998). Citation characteristics of English-language monographs in philosophy. Library & Information Science Research, 20, 41–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2004). Using a bibliometric approach to support research policy making: The case of the Flemish BOF-key. Scientometrics, 59(2), 253–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deepika, J., & Mahalakshmi, G. S. (2011). Journal impact factor: A measure of quality or popularity? In IICAI (pp. 1138–1157).

  • Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93, 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Errami, M., Sun, Z., Long, T. C., George, A. C., & Garner, H. R. (2009). Deja vu: A database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature. Nucleic Acids Research, 37(suppl 1), D921–D924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22(8), 2623–2628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frølich, N. (2011). Multi-layered accountability. Performance-based funding of universities. Public Administration, 89(3), 840–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1996). How can impact factors be improved? British Medical Journal, 313(7054), 411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T., Ingwersen, P., Polonen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2015a). The evaluation of scholarly books as research output. Current developments in Europe. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on scientometrics & informetrics. Istambul: ISSI, 2015.

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Tejada-Artigas, C. M. (2015b). Scholarly publishers indicators: Prestige, specialization and review systems of scholarly book publishers. El profesional de la información, 24(6), 855–860. http://www.elprofesionaldelainformacion.com/contenidos/2015/nov/18.pdf.

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., & Román-Román, A. (2009). Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: A review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Research Evaluation, 18(3), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Tejada-Artigas, C., & Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2013). Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey. Research Evaluation, 22(1), 64–77. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schoepflin, U. (1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing and Management, 35(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinzkill, R. (1980). Characteristics of references in selected scholarly. English journals. Library Quarterly, 50, 352–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012a). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2012b). One size doesn’t fit all: On the co-evolution of national evaluation systems and social science publishing. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics, 1(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen, P., & Larsen, B. (2014). Influence of a performance indicator on Danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1291-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2010). The impact factor’s Matthew Effect: A natural experiment in bibliometrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 424–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Journal of Scientometric Research, 1(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michavila, F. (dir.). (2012). La Universidad española en cifras. Madrid: CRUE. http://www.crue.org/Publicaciones/Documents/UEC/LA_UNIVERSIDAD_ESPANOLA_EN_CIFRAS.pdf.

  • Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Greater incentives for strengthening quality in education and research: A proposal for revising the funding model for universities as of 2015. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2014/liitteet/tr07.pdf?lang=fi.

  • Ministry of Education and Culture. (2015). Proposal for the funding model of universities as of 2017. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2015/liitteet/tr19.pdf?lang=fi.

  • Moed, H. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, C., & Summers, M. A. (2008). Citation counts and the Research Assessment Exercise, part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music). Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 13(2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper342.html.

  • Ossenblok, T. L., Engels, T. C., & Sivertsen, G. (2012). 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). Research Evaluation, 21(4), 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pölönen, J., & Ruth, A.-S. (2015). Final report on 2014 review of ratings in Publication Forum, Federation of Finnish Learned Societies 2015. http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/sites/julkaisufoorumi.fi/files/publication_forum_final_report_on_2014_review_of_ratings.pdf.

  • Puuska, H.-M. (2014). Scholarly Publishing Patterns in Finland: A comparison of disciplinary groups. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, S. (2004). The Research Assessment Exercises 1992–2001: Patterns across time and subjects. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, S., & Coleman, S. (2005). Ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise 2001—The patterns of university status and panel membership. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(2), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., & Baveye, P. (2010). Battling the paper glut. Science, 329(5998), 1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen, G. (2010). A performance indicator based on complete data for the scientific publication output at research institutions. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen, G., & Larsen, B. (2012). Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: An empirical analysis of the potential. Scientometrics, 91(2), 567–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivertsen, G., & Schneider, J. W. (2012). Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator. Oslo: NIFU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, M. (1983). Characteristics of the literature of literary scholarship. College and Research Libraries, 44, 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2011). The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics? British Journal of Management, 22(2), 202–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Technopolis Group. (2013). Evaluation of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). Executive summary. Amsterdam: Technopolis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52, 121–136.

    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(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Fuente-Gutierrez, E., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Bibliometric indicators for publishers. http://bipublishers.es.

  • UNE. (2014). España crea un sello de calidad para reconocer la excelencia científica del proceso editorial de las colecciones publicadas por las universidades. http://www.une.es/Ent/Items/ItemDetail.aspx?ID=9610.

  • Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 428–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verleysen, F. T., Ghesquière, P., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). The objectives, design and selection process of the Flemish Academic Bibliographic Database for the Social Sciences and Humanities (VABB-SHW). In W. Blockmans, et al. (Eds.), The use and abuse of bibliometrics (pp. 115–125). London: Academiae Europaea; Portland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. (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 

  • Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2014). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & van Leeuwen, T. (2011). Book reviews in humanities research evaluations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1979–1991. doi:10.1002/asi.21588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A. A., Verleysen, F. T., Cornacchia, R., & Engels, T. C. (2015). Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 320–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is partially the result of the project ‘Evaluación de editoriales científicas (españolas y extranjeras) de libros en Ciencias Humanas y Sociales a través de la opinión de los expertos y del análisis de los procesos HAR2011-30383-C02-01 (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Plan Nacional de I+D+I). F.V. and T.E. thank the Flemish government for financial support through the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elea Giménez-Toledo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T.C.E. et al. Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics 107, 685–699 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation