Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index

Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book... Purpose – The aim of this study is to analyse the disciplinary coverage of Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index database focusing on publisher presence, impact and specialisation. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a descriptive study in which they examined coverage by discipline, publisher distribution by field and country of publication, and publisher impact. For this purpose the Thomson Reuters' subject categories were aggregated into 15 disciplines. Findings – Humanities and social sciences comprise 30 per cent of the total share of this database. Most of the disciplines are covered by very few publishers mainly from the UK and USA (75.05 per cent of the books), in fact 33 publishers hold 90 per cent of the whole share. Regarding publisher impact, 80.5 per cent of the books and chapters remained uncited. Two serious errors were found in this database: the Book Citation Index does not retrieve all citations for books and chapters; and book citations do not include citations to their chapters. Originality/value – There are currently no studies analysing in depth the coverage of this novel database which covers monographs. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Online Information Review Emerald Publishing

Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index

Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/coverage-field-specialisation-and-the-impact-of-scientific-publishers-Gctg37YrOm
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1468-4527
DOI
10.1108/OIR-10-2012-0169
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this study is to analyse the disciplinary coverage of Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index database focusing on publisher presence, impact and specialisation. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a descriptive study in which they examined coverage by discipline, publisher distribution by field and country of publication, and publisher impact. For this purpose the Thomson Reuters' subject categories were aggregated into 15 disciplines. Findings – Humanities and social sciences comprise 30 per cent of the total share of this database. Most of the disciplines are covered by very few publishers mainly from the UK and USA (75.05 per cent of the books), in fact 33 publishers hold 90 per cent of the whole share. Regarding publisher impact, 80.5 per cent of the books and chapters remained uncited. Two serious errors were found in this database: the Book Citation Index does not retrieve all citations for books and chapters; and book citations do not include citations to their chapters. Originality/value – There are currently no studies analysing in depth the coverage of this novel database which covers monographs.

Journal

Online Information Review – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 8, 2014

Keywords: Databases; Citation analysis; Publishers; Book Citation Index; Monographs; Thomson Reuters

References

  • History of the journal impact factor: contingencies and consequences
    Archambault, E.; Larivière, V.
  • The limits of bibliometrics for the analysis of the social sciences and humanities literature
    Archambault, E.; Larivière, V.
  • ‘Publish or perish’ as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: international case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history
    Baneyx, A.
  • Citations to the ‘Introduction to informetrics’ indexed by WOS Scopus and Google Scholar
    Bar‐Ilan, J.
  • Google Books and WorldCat: a comparison of their content
    Chen, X.
  • Editing academic books in the humanities and social sciences: maximizing impact for effort
    Edwards, L.
  • Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation
    Garfield, E.
  • The evolution of the Science Citation Index
    Garfield, E.
  • New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing
    Garfield, E.; Sher, I.H.
  • Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: a review and a study towards a model of evaluation
    Giménez‐Toledo, E.; Román‐Román, A.
  • A bibliometric study of reference literature in the science and social sciences
    Glänzel, W.; Schoepflin, U.
  • Interdisciplinarity and the intellectual base of literature studies: citation analysis of highly cited monographs
    Hammarfelt, B.
  • The four literatures of social science
    Hicks, D.
  • Coverage and overlap of the new Social Sciences and Humanities Journal Lists
    Hicks, D.; Wang, J.
  • Google book search: citation analysis for social science and the humanities
    Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.
  • Assessing citation impact of books: the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus
    Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Rezaie, S.
  • Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals
    Kulkarni, A.V.; Aziz, B.; Shams, I.; Busse, J.W.
  • Citations to papers from other documents
    Lewison, G.
  • Edited volumes, monographs and book chapters in the Book Citation Index
    Leydesdorff, L.; Felt, U.
  • Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link
    Linmans, A.J.M.
  • Lifting the crown‐citation z‐score
    Lundberg, J.
  • Towards a bibliometric database for the social sciences and humanities – a European scoping project
    Martin, B.; Tang, P.; Morgan, M.; Glänzel, W.; Hornbostel, S.; Lauer, G.; Lenclud, G.; Lima, L.; Oppenheim, C.; vandenBesselaar, P.; Zic‐Fuchs, M.
  • Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar
    Meho, L.I.; Yang, K.
  • Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
    Moed, H.F.
  • Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities. A review
    Nederhof, A.J.
  • Networks of scientific papers
    Price, D.S.D.
  • The rise and fall of uncitedness
    Schwartz, C.A.
  • Comprehensive bibliographic coverage of the social sciences and humanities in a citation index: an empirical analysis of the potential
    Sivertsen, G.; Larsen, B.
  • The book selection process for the Book Citation Index in Web of Science
    Testa, J.
  • Library Catalog Analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: an exploratory study of published book titles in Economics
    Torres‐Salinas, D.; Moed, H.F.
  • Towards a ‘Book Publishers Citation Reports’. First approach using the ‘Book Citation Index’
    Torres‐Salinas, D.; Robinson‐García, N.; Jiménez‐Contreras, E.; Delgado López‐Cózar, E.
  • Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance
    Van Leeuwen, T.N.; Moed, H.F.; Tijssen, R.J.W.; Visser, M.S.; van Raan, A.F.J.
  • Libcitations: a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences
    White, H.; Boell, S.K.; Yu, H.; Davis, M.; Wilson, C.S.; Cole, F.T.H.
  • The role and future of the monograph in arts and humanities research
    Williams, P.; Stevenson, I.; Nicholas, D.; Watkinson, A.; Rowlands, I.
  • Book reviews in humanities research evaluations
    Zuccala, A.; van Leeuwen, T.