Publication models in a changing environment: bibliometric analysis of books and book chapters using publications by Surrey Beatty & Sons
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Expectations and patterns of publication have changed markedly with evolving online availability and associated development of new citation gathering databases. Perhaps the most vulnerable components of the scientific literature to ongoing change are books and book chapters, given their elongated publication timelines and generally more limited online availability. To test this, we applied citation analyses and assessments of library holdings to determine the use of the natural history books published by Surrey Beatty & Sons between 1987 and 2010. We (i) evaluated the relative use of book chapters and journal papers by comparing citations to chapters in the five books of the Nature Conservation series by Surrey Beatty & Sons to citations of journal chapters in four Australian journals published in the same years, (ii) determined the efficacy of four different databases in retrieving citations to book chapters by comparing their recovery of citations to the five books of the Nature Conservation series, and (iii) quantified noncitation measures related to library holdings to evaluate the use of the books on the entire Surrey Beatty & Sons list. Mean citations/chapter to the first three books in the Nature Conservation series were similar to the mean citations/ paper in four Australian journals published in the same years. However, the mean citations/chapter of the last two books declined relative to citations/paper for the journals, suggesting a fall in book use evident by early this century. Citation retrieval varied across databases; Google Scholar retrieved most citations, followed by Scopus, Web of Science (Cited Reference Search) and Web of Knowledge. Contrary to published concerns, no citations retrieved by Google Scholar were in questionable sources such as contents pages - many were from highly ranked journals. Each book in the full Surrey Beatty & Sons list was held by an average of 45.3 libraries in Australia and 36.1 in the USA, and less than five in each of the UK, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada, Germany and South Africa. This was a similar coverage to another Australian publisher, the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, and indicated strong markets in Australia and the USA. It was less, though, than the number of libraries with current or past subscriptions to five Australian journals publishing nature conservation content. We conclude that citation data for books and book chapters are available and that library holdings provide another measure of use. The online ‘visibility’ of books may be a problem, but can be improved through better marketing and improved author search techniques.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».