Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.; Abdoli, M.: Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books (2017)
0.03
0.029559745 = product of:
0.14779872 = sum of:
0.14779872 = weight(_text_:books in 3768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14779872 = score(doc=3768,freq=10.0), product of:
0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
0.051222645 = queryNorm
0.5970138 = fieldWeight in 3768, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3768)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the arts (85% of books had at least one), humanities (80%), and social sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated, they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.
