Measuring book impact via content-level academic review mining

Qingqing Zhou · Chengzhi Zhang

8 citations0/0 files storedThe Electronic Library

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Library Science and Information Web visibility and informetrics

Abstract

Purpose As for academic papers, the customary methods for assessing the impact of books are based on citations, which is straightforward but limited to the coverage of databases. Alternative metrics can be used to avoid such limitations, such as blog citations and library holdings. However, content-level information is generally ignored, thus overlooking users’ intentions. Meanwhile, abundant academic reviews express scholars’ opinions on books, which can be used to assess books’ impact via fine-grained review mining. Hence, this study aims to assess books’ use impacts by conducting content mining of academic reviews automatically and thereby confirmed the usefulness of academic reviews to libraries and readers. Design/methodology/approach Firstly, 61,933 academic reviews in Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries were collected with three metadata metrics. Then, review contents were mined to obtain content metrics. Finally, to identify the reliability of academic reviews, Choice review metrics and other assessment metrics for use impact were compared and analysed. Findings The analysis results reveal that fine-grained mining of academic reviews can help users quickly understand multi-dimensional features of books, judge or predict the impacts of mass books, so as to provide references for different types of users (e.g. libraries and public readers) in book selection. Originality/value Book impact assessment via content mining can provide more detail information for massive users and cover shortcomings of traditional methods. It provides a new perspective and method for researches on use impact assessment. Moreover, this study’s proposed method might also be a means by which to measure other publications besides books.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2014Structural Topic Models for Open‐Ended Survey Responses 2006Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science 2010Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WOS, Scopus and Google Scholar 2015Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis 2014Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics 2011Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus 2009Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences 2009Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link

Cited by

2021Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.