Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors
This study aims to assess the role of authored and edited books in scholarly communication through citation analysis. It focuses on social science journal articles written by authors from Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The sample for book citation analysis were references (n = 1,033,926) from research articles (n = 35,501) published in 2726 journals indexed in Scopus, where at least one author was from a CEE country. The journals were classified in 10 social science fields (economics and business, education, library and information science, law, political science, psychology, sociology, and three multidisciplinary fields) and divided into two groups according to the journal publisher’s country (CEE and non-CEE journals). Authored (n = 221,768) and edited books (n = 74,506) were extracted from cited references through an in-depth parsing and cleaning process. The average number of cited references per article in the full sample was 29, with the share of cited authored books of 21.4% and edited books of 7.2%. The share of authored books in cited references in CEE journals was 26.6%, while for edited books it was 7.8%. Sociology is a field where books are almost equally represented in cited references (47%) as articles, while book citations are much less represented in the fields of psychology (28%), economics and business (27%), and information and library science (24%). Additionally, the core book authors were identified across scientific fields, and differences in citing books covered by Scholarly Publishers Indicators versus books published by local/regional publishers were explored.
KeywordsAuthored books Edited books Journals Social sciences Citation analysis Central and Eastern European countries
This work has been supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the Project IP-09-2014-9351. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Croatian Science Foundation.
- Cordón-García, J.A., Goméz-Díaz, R., Rodríguéz-García, A., Sánchez-Jara, J.M., Mangas-Véga, A., Dantas, T., et al. (Eds.) (2017). Proceedings of the 5th international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (TEEM 2017) (Article 30), New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145380.
- Engels, T. C. E., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giménez-Toledo, E. (2016). Assessment of journal & book publishers in the humanities and social sciences in Spain Research. In M. Ochsner, S. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 91–102). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C. E., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., Ochsner, M., et al. (2019). Taking scholarly books into account, part II: A comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding. Scientometrics, 118(1), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2956-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2015). The evaluation of scholarly books as a research output. Current developments in Europe. In Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 469–476). Istanbul: ISSI.Google Scholar
- Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., Engels, T. C. E., Ingwersen, P., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., et al. (2016). Taking scholarly books into account: Current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics, 107(2), 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1886-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social sciences. In H. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), The handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Huang, S.-Y., Chen, H.-C., Liu, T.-C., Chang, C.-J., & Tsai, M.-N. (2018). Research content analysis for a period of 60 years for the journal of national Taiwan normal university and journal of research in education sciences. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2018.63(1).01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jokić, M., Zauder, K., & Letina, S. (2012). Karakteristike hrvatske nacionalne i međunarodne znanstvene produkcije u društveno-humanističkim znanostima i umjetničkom području za razdoblje 1991-2005 [The features of Croatian national and international scholarly productivity in social sciences, arts and humanities 1991-2005]. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja.Google Scholar
- Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015a). Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can choice reviews be a useful source? In Proceedings of ISSI 2015 Istanbul: 15th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 59–70). Istanbul: ISSI.Google Scholar
- Lazić, N., Mateljan S., & Jokić, M. (2017). Reliability of scopus subject classification of journals and its impact on bibliometric research. Unpublished manuscript. http://racoss.idi.hr/QQML2017-LMJ.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2018.
- Mañana Rodriguez, J., & Pölönen, J. (2018). Scholarly book publishers’ ratings and lists in Finland and Spain: Comparison and assessment of the evaluative potential of merged lists. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Muskens, G., & Kinnear, R. (1993). Political and multicultural constraints of the social sciences in Europe: Cultural contact, schismogenesis and institutional change. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 6(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.1993.9968349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robinson, W., & Poston, P. (2004). Literature use by U.S. economists published in 1999: An exploratory study. Behavioral and Social Science Libraries, 22(2), 53–65.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, F. R. (2000). The most-cited legal books published since 1978. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S1), 397–405.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
- Small, H. G., & Crane, D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: An examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics, 1(5/6), 445–461.Google Scholar
- Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136.Google Scholar
- Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-García, N., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2014). Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: Edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2113–2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1168-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu, Z., Das, S., Li, Z., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2013). Searching online book documents and analyzing book citations. In DocEng 2013: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM symposium on document engineering (pp. 81–90). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2494266.2494282.
- Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus ‘perceived cultural benefit’ (RIP). In Proceedings of ISSI 2013: 14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (pp. 353–360). Vienna: ISSI.Google Scholar
- Zuccala, A., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2019). Reviewing, indicating, and counting books for modern research evaluation systems. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology indicators. Heidelberg: Springer. (forthcoming).Google Scholar