Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    This research was carried out as a part of the project “Research activity, collaboration and orientation in social sciences in Croatia and other post-socialist European countries (RACOSS)”, http://racoss.idi.hr/index_en.html.

  2. 2.

    Authors’ access to Scopus database was endorsed by Croatian Ministry of Science and Education.

  3. 3.

    Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS), Classification in the Frascati Manual http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/38235147.pdf (accessed 24-11-2017).

  4. 4.

    For more information on Scholarly Publishers Indicators (SPI) see http://ilia.cchs.csic.es/SPI/ (assessed 05-01-2019).

  5. 5.

    Ulrichsweb™, https://www.proquest.com/products-services/Ulrichsweb.html (accessed 21-01-2019).

  6. 6.

    The recent Helsinki Initiative on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication: https://www.helsinki-initiative.org/ (accessed 24-06-2019) is in favor of protecting national publishers.

  7. 7.

    This problem could be solved through the initiative on International Register of Book Publishers that is being developed in the framework of ENRESSH Cost Action and aims at reflecting the diversity in scholarly publishing at the national level (https://enressh.eu/ (accessed 24-06-2019).

References

  1. Alatas, S. F. (2003). Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current Sociology, 51(6), 599–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921030516003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Citations to the ‘Introduction to informetrics’ indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 82(3), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0185-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bott, D. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1991). Are sociologists’ publications uncited? Citation rates of journal articles, chapters, and books. The American Sociologist, 22(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02691874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Butler, L., & Visser, M. (2006). Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics, 66(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0024-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman, K., & Yates, S. D. (2017). The impact of the monographs crisis on the field of communication. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chi, P. S. (2014). Which role do non-source items play in the social sciences? A case study in political science in Germany. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1195–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1433-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chi, P. S. (2016). Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature? Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 814–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(2), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Enger, K. B. (2009). Using citation analysis to develop core book collections in academic libraries. Library and Information Science Research, 31(2), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Furner, J. (2003). Little book, big book: Before and after little science, big science: A review article, part I. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 35(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000603352006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2017). Scholarly book publishing: Its information sources for evaluation in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P.-S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2046-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gläser, J. (2004). Why are the most influential books in Australian sociology not necessarily the most highly cited ones? Journal of Sociology, 40(3), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783304046370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Halevi, G., Nicolas, B., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2016). The complexity of measuring the impact of books. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9464-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base of literature studies: Citation analysis of highly cited monographs. Scientometrics, 86(3), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0314-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities. In M. Ochsner, S. Hug, & H. D. Daniel (Eds.), Research assessment in the humanities (pp. 115–131). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_10.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jokić, M., Mervar, A., & Mateljan, S. (2018). The development of political science in Central and Eastern Europe: Bibliometric perspective, 1996–2013. European Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0191-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

  30. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

  32. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015b). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2017a). Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 762–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2017b). News stories as evidence for research? BBC citations from articles, Books, and Wikipedia. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 2017–2028. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books? Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 972–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, M. (2017). Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 2004–2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980-2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025475423482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

  39. Leydesdorff, L., & Felt, U. (2012). “Books “ and “book Chapters” in the Book Citation Index CIBKCI) and Science Citation Index (SCI, SoSCI, A&HCI). Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting, 49(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504901027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y., & Warner, J. (1996). The role of monographs in scholarly communication: An empirical study of philosophy, sociology and economics. Journal of Documentation, 52(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu, W., Ding, Y., & Gu, M. (2017). Book reviews in academic journals: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 110(1), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mañana Rodriguez, J., & Giménez-Toledo, E. (2018). Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: Differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers. Scientometrics, 114(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2563-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nicolaisen, J. (2002). The scholarliness of published peer reviews: A bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields. Research Evaluation, 11(3), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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 

  48. Samuels, D. J. (2011). The modal number of citations to political science articles is greater than zero: Accounting for citations in articles and books. PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Samuels, D. J. (2013). Book citations count. PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(4), 785–790. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Moshonsky, M. (2012). Books as a knowledge translation mechanism: Citation analysis and author survey. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shapiro, F. R. (2000). The most-cited legal books published since 1978. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S1), 397–405.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

  53. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0615-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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 

  55. Smith, G. M. (1977). Key books in business and management studies: A bibliometric analysis. Aslib Proceedings, 29(5), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb050591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly monographs. College and Research Libraries, 69(4), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.69.4.356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 

  58. Torres-Salinas, D., Gorraiz, J., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2018). The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Torres-Salinas, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, R., Robinson-García, N., Fdez-Valdivia, J., & García, J. A. (2013). Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tsay, M. (2011). A bibliometric analysis and comparison on three information science journals: JASIST, IPM, JOD, 1998-2008. Scientometrics, 89(2), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0460-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Tsay, M.-Y., Shen, T.-M., & Liang, M.-H. (2016). A comparison of citation distributions of journals and books on the topic ‘information society’. Scientometrics, 106(2), 475–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1791-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

  65. Zhou, Q., Zhang, C., Zhao, S. X., & Chen, B. (2016). Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1435–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1930-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zuccala, A., & Cornacchia, R. (2016). Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 108(1), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1911-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

  68. Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2015). 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maja Jokić.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jokić, M., Mervar, A. & Mateljan, S. Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors. Scientometrics 120, 1005–1029 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03176-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Authored books
  • Edited books
  • Journals
  • Social sciences
  • Citation analysis
  • Central and Eastern European countries