[目的/意义]探索入藏馆量在学术著作评价工作中的应用，为学术评价提供参考。[方法/过程]从指标数据的产生机制、获取及应用情况3个方面讨论入藏馆量在学术著作影响力评价中的适用性，并以WorldCat为例进行实证分析与讨论。[结果/结论]入藏馆量数据通常来源于国家或国际图书馆联盟目录，在获取数据时，应根据选择的指标来源选择合适的检索方式，以准确获取著作的入藏馆量信息。在应用入藏馆量时，应考虑入藏图书馆的类型、地域等属性才能更加全面、准确评价著作的影响力。
[Purpose/significance] This paper explores how to apply the libcitation in the evaluation of scholarly books, to make suggestions for the evaluation of scholarly books.[Method/process] The paper discussed how libcitations be produced, be obtained and how to use libcitations in evaluation of scholarly books, taking WorldCat as an example to conduct an empirical analysis and discussion.[Result/conclusion] Libcitations can be got from library union catalogs. When obtaining the data, the appropriate retrieval method should be selected according to the selected source, so as to obtain the collection information of the works accurately. In the application of the libcitations, the features of the library should be considered to evaluate the influence of works more comprehensively and accurately.
[1] GARFIELD E, EMERITUS C. Citation indexes for retrieval and research evaluation[EB/OL].[2018-10-15].http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/ciretreseval-capri.html.
[2] 何峻. 我国图书评价现状分析[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2012(3):106-110.
[3] SMITH R. Measuring the social impact of research[J]. BMJ, 2001, 323(7312):528.
[4] SARLI C C, DUBINSKY E K, HOLMES K L. Beyond citation analysis:a model for assessment of research impact[J]. Journal of the Medical Library Association Jmla, 2010, 98(1):17-23.
[5] WILBERTZ J. Evaluating societal relevance of research[EB/OL].[2018-10-15]. https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14412466/Evaluatingsocietalrelevance.pdf.
[6] WHITE H D, BOELL S K, YU H, et al. Libcitations:a measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2009, 60(6):1083-1096.
[7] HALEVI G, NICOLAS B, BAR-ILAN J. The complexity of measuring the impact of books[J]. Publishing research quarterly, 2016, 32(3):1-14.
[8] LINMANS A J M. Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 83(2):337-354.
[9] ZUCCALA A, GUNS R. Comparing book citations in humanities journals to library holdings:Scholarly use versus ‘perceived cultural benefit’ (RIP)[C]//14th international society of scientometrics and informetrics conference. Wien:Facultas Verlags-und Buchhandels AG, 2013:353-360.
[10] ZUCCALA A. Correlating libcitations and citations in the humanities with worldcat and scopus data[EB/OL].[2018-10-15]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303286873_Correlating_libcitations_and_citations_in_the_humanities_with_WorldCat_and_Scopus_data.
[11] SHAW D. An analysis of the relationship between book reviews and fiction holdings in OCLC[J]. Library & information science research, 1991, 13(2):147-154.
[12] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Alternative metrics for book impact assessment:can choice reviews be a useful source?[EB/OL].[2018-10-15]. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c69a/38d1ac5bafd750a3f54411452e8ac6d5f79d.pdf.
[13] 张玉,潘云涛,袁军鹏,等. 论多维视角下中文科技图书学术影响力评价体系的构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(7):69-76.
[14] 余厚强,邱均平. 替代计量指标分层与聚合的理论研究[J]. 图书馆杂志, 2014, 33(10):13-19.
[15] WHITE H D, ZUCCALA A A. Libcitations, WorldCat, cultural Impact, and fame[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2018, 69(12):1502-1512.
[16] American Library Association. Types of libraries[EB/OL].[2018-10-15]. http://www.ala.org/educationcareers/libcareers/type.
[17] 鲜鹏. 论图书馆类型划分的本质属性——兼论党校图书馆应该向研究型专门图书馆发展[J]. 情报资料工作, 2002(6):48-50.
[18] 《中国图书海外馆藏影响力研究报告(2016版)》发布[J]. 国家图书馆学刊, 2016(5):10.
[19] A survey of collection development trends in academic libraries[EB/OL].[2018-10-15]. https://www.ebsco.com/blog/article/collection-development-trends-in-academic-libraries.
