Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04435764 = product of:
  0.06653646 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=1530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
    0.030561633 = product of:
      0.061123267 = sum of:
        0.061123267 = weight(_text_:training in 1530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061123267 = score(doc=1530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23690371 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050723847 = queryNorm
            0.2580089 = fieldWeight in 1530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.67046 = idf(docFreq=1125, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A theory of "megacitation" is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and "libcitations" (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.

0.011991608 = product of:
  0.035974823 = sum of:
    0.035974823 = weight(_text_:based in 2037) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035974823 = score(doc=2037,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15283063 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050723847 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 2037, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2037)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a publisher ranking study based on a citation data grant from Elsevier, specifically, book titles cited in Scopus history journals (2007-2011) and matching metadata from WorldCat® (i.e., OCLC numbers, ISBN codes, publisher records, and library holding counts). Using both resources, we have created a unique relational database designed to compare citation counts to books with international library holdings or libcitations for scholarly book publishers. First, we construct a ranking of the top 500 publishers and explore descriptive statistics at the level of publisher type (university, commercial, other) and country of origin. We then identify the top 50 university presses and commercial houses based on total citations and mean citations per book (CPB). In a third analysis, we present a map of directed citation links between journals and book publishers. American and British presses/publishing houses tend to dominate the work of library collection managers and citing scholars; however, a number of specialist publishers from Europe are included. Distinct clusters from the directed citation map indicate a certain degree of regionalism and subject specialization, where some journals produced in languages other than English tend to cite books published by the same parent press. Bibliometric rankings convey only a small part of how the actual structure of the publishing field has evolved; hence, challenges lie ahead for developers of new citation indices for books and bibliometricians interested in measuring book and publisher impacts.