Abstract
In 2009, Torres-Salinas & Moed proposed the use of library catalogs to analyze the impact and dissemination of academic books in different ways. Library Catalog Analysis (LCA) can be defined as the application of bibliometric techniques to a set of online library catalogs in order to describe quantitatively a scientific-scholarly field on the basis of published book titles. The aim of the present chapter is to conduct an in-depth analysis of major scientific contributions since the birth of LCA in order to determine the state of the art of this research topic. Hence, our specific objectives are: 1) to discuss the original purposes of library holdings 2) to present correlations between library holdings and altmetrics indicators and interpret their feasible meanings 3) to analyze the principal sources of information 4) to use WorldCat Identities to identify the principal authors and works in the field of Informetrics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
An OPAC is an online database that enables us to consult a library catalog.
- 2.
WorldCat Identities: https://worldcat.org/identities/.
- 3.
Table 8 illustrates our confirmation or perception of the educational value of books—a dimension not captured by citation since manuals or handbooks are rarely cited in scientific literature.
- 4.
Jisc Library Hub Discover: https://discover.libraryhub.jisc.ac.uk/.
- 5.
SUDOC—Catalogue du Système Universitaire de Documentation: http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/.
- 6.
REBIUN—Red de Bibliotecas Universitarias Españolas: https://www.rebiun.org.
- 7.
INKA—Inkunabelkatalog: http://www.inka.uni-tuebingen.de.
- 8.
LIBISnet: http://libis.be/libis/libisnet.
- 9.
Information drawn from the Directory of OCLC Members: https://www.oclc.org/en/contacts/libraries.html. Note that some OCLC sources put the number of member libraries at 17 983: https://www.oclc.org/en/about.html.
- 10.
- 11.
Harvard Library APIs & Datasets: https://library.harvard.edu/services-tools/harvard-library-apis-datasets.
- 12.
COPAC API: https://www.programmableweb.com/api/copac.
- 13.
WorldCat Search API: https://platform.worldcat.org/api-explorer/apis/wcapi.
- 14.
WorldCat Search API for OCLC Member Institution: Terms and Conditions: https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/developer-network/PDFs/wcapi-terms-and-conditions-20121204.pdf.
- 15.
WorldCat Identities has 30 million entries and groups together information from sources such as VIAF and FAST. More information https://www.oclc.org/research/themes/data-science/identities.html.
References
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingrasb, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z.
Biagetti, M. T., Iacono, A., & Trombone, A. (2018a). Is the diffusion of books in library holdings a reliable indicator in research assessment? BT—The Evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.) (pp. 321–343). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_14.
Biagetti, M. T., Iacono, A., & Trombone, A. (2018b). Testing library catalog analysis as a bibliometric indicator for research evaluation in Social Sciences and Humanities. In Challenges and Opportunities for Knowledge Organization in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference 9–11 July 2018 Porto, Portugal (1st ed., pp. 892–899). Baden-Baden: Ergon-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956504211-892.
Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Beyond coverage: Toward a bibliometrics for the humanities BT—Research assessment in the humanities: Towards criteria and procedures. In M. Ochsner, S. E. Hug, & H.-D. Daniel (Eds.) (pp. 115–131). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29016-4_10.
Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9.
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.
Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457380.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Web indicators for research evaluation: Part 3: Books and non standard outputs. El Profesional de La Información, 24(6), 724–736. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.nov.04.
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(3), 566–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23404.
Lewis, R. M., & Kennedy, M. R. (2019). The big picture: A holistic view of e-book acquisitions. Library Resources & Technical Services, 63(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.63n2.160.
Linmans, A. J. M. (2008). Een exploratieve studie van de onderzoeksprestaties van de Faculteit Letteren aan de Universiteit Leiden (in Dutch). Internal CWTS Report.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0088-9.
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.
Neville, T. M., & Henry, D. B. (2014). Evaluating scholarly book publishers—A case study in the field of journalism. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.05.005.
Nilges, C. (2006). The online computer library center’s Open WorldCat program. Library Trends, 54(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0027.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics new indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar, 21(41), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-05.
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.
Torres-Salinas, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2017a). PlumX As a potential tool to assess the macroscopic multidimensional impact of books. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2(July), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00005.
Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. (2008). Library catalog analysis is a useful tool in studies of social sciences and humanities. In A New Challenge for the Combination of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. 10th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Viena.
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.
Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Gorraiz, J. (2017b). Filling the citation gap: Measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1371–1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2539-z.
Tyler, D. C., Hitt, B. D., Nterful, F. A., & Mettling, M. R. (2019). The scholarly impact of books acquired via approval plan selection, librarian orders, and patron-driven acquisitions as measured by citation counts. College & Research Libraries, 80(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.4.525.
Wakeling, S., Clough, P., Silipigni Connaway, L., Sen, B., & Tomás, D. (2017). Users and uses of a global union catalog: A mixed-methods study of WorldCat.org. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2166–2181. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23708.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21045.
White, H. D., & Zuccala, A. (2018). Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(12), 1502–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24064.
Yuan, W., Van Ballegooie, M., & Robertson, J. L. (2018). Ebooks versus print books: Format preferences in an academic library. Collection Management, 43(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2017.1365264.
Zhang, H., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, C. (2018). Multi-discipline correlation analysis between citations and detailed features of library holdings. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 946–947. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501188.
Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus “perceived cultural benefit” (RIP). In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, ISSI 2013 (Vol. 1, pp. 353–360). Amsterdam.
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.
Zuccala, A., & White, H. D. (2015). Correlating libcitations and citations in the humanities with WorldCat and Scopus data. In S. A.A., S. A.A.A., S. C., A. U., & T. Y. (Eds.), 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, ISSI 2015(pp. 305–316). Royal School of Library and Information Science, University of Copenhagen, Birketinget 6, Copenhagen S, DK-2300, Denmark: Bogazici Universitesi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Torres-Salinas, D., Arroyo-Machado, W. (2020). Library Catalog Analysis and Library Holdings Counts: Origins, Methodological Issues and Application to the Field of Informetrics. In: Daraio, C., Glänzel, W. (eds) Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47664-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47665-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)