Exploring WorldCat Identities as an altmetric information source: A library catalog analysis experiment in the field of Scientometrics

Torres-Salinas, Daniel and Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao and Thelwall, Mike Exploring WorldCat Identities as an altmetric information source: A library catalog analysis experiment in the field of Scientometrics., 2020 (In Press) [Preprint]

[img]
Preview
 Text
Libray Catalog_Worldcat.pdf - Submitted version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (897kB) | Preview

English abstract

Assessing the impact of scholarly books is a difficult research evaluation problem. Library Catalog Analysis facilitates the quantitative study, at different levels, of the impact and diffusion of academic books based on data about their availability in libraries. The WorldCat global catalog collates data on library holdings, offering a range of tools including the novel WorldCat Identities. This is based on author profiles and provides indicators relating to the availability of their books in library catalogs. Here, we investigate this new tool to identify its strengths and weaknesses based on a sample of Bibliometrics and Scientometrics authors. We review the problems that this entails and compare Library Catalog Analysis indicators with Google Scholar and Web of Science citations. The results show that WorldCat Identities can be a useful tool for book impact assessment but the value of its data is undermined by the provision of massive collections of ebooks to academic libraries.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Library Catalog Analysis, Library Holdings Analysis, Libcitations, WorldCat Identities, WorldCat
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BA. Use and impact of information.
D. Libraries as physical collections.
Depositing user: Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado
Date deposited: 30 Nov 2020 08:37
Last modified: 30 Nov 2020 08:37
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/40694

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. (2018). 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 (pp. 892–899). Baden-Baden: Ergon-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783956504211-892

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

Jacsó, P., & Lancaster, F. W. (1999). Build your own database. American Library Association.

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

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). The Role of Ego in Academic Profile Services: Comparing Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and ResearcherID (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2745892). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2745892

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3714-7

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

Price, D. J. D. S. (1962). Science since babylon. Yale University Press New Haven.

Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ Accessed 20 March 2020.

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1125-1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

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 C. Daraio & W. Glänzel (Eds.), Evaluative Informetrics: The Art of Metrics-Based Research Assessment: Festschrift in Honour of Henk F. Moed (pp. 287-308). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_13

Torres-Salinas, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). PlumX As a Potential Tool to Assess the Macroscopic Multidimensional Impact of Books. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00005

Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (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. (2017). 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

Wakeling, S., Clough, P., Connaway, L. S., 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

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. (2018). Language, Culture and Traversing the Scholarly Evaluation Landscape. In: A. Bonaccorsi (Eds.), The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_17

Zuccala, A., Breum, M., Bruun, K. & Wunsch, B.T. (2018). Metric assessments of books as families of works. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23921

Zuccala, A., & Guns, R. (2013). Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings: Scholarly use versus ‘perceived cultural benefit’. In 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, ISSI 2013, pp. 353–360. Vienna.

Zuccala, A., & White, H. D. (2015). Correlating libcitations and citations in the humanities with WorldCat and scopus data. In A.A. Salah, Y. Tonta, A. A. Akdag Salah, C. Sugimoto, & U. Al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics Conference, (ISSI), Istanbul, Turkey, 29th June to 4th July, 2015. (pp. 305–316). Denmark: Bogazici Universitesi.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS