[Purpose/significance] Comparative analysis of the influence of foreign academic electronic books in different disciplines is to enrich evaluation methods of electronic books and provide beneficial preferences for improving the scientific evaluation system of electronic books classification by disciplines.[Method/process] Bookmetrix was used to study academic electronic books in the fields of economics and management and education. The correlation and consistency between their traditional citation metrics and Altmetrics metrics (Mendeley readership, number of followers, number of downloads) and book reviews were quantitatively analyzed to compare the differences between the metrics of foreign electronic books in the two disciplines, and nonparametric tests were performed.[Result/conclusion] This paper finds that:The number of citations, readers, downloads with higher index coverage rate; By Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z independent two-sample test, economics and management and education of electronic books are significantly different from the number of downloads and citations. However, the number of online mentions, readers, reviews of the two has not significant differences (p=0.05); Correction between indicators present discipline differences:The correlation between the citations and the number of Mendeley readers of economics and management books is higher than that of education books. Citations show academic influence of academic e-books, and usage data (the number of downloads, etc.) and Altmetrics data reflect more societal impact of books. For the evaluation of Chinese academic e-books, multi-source heterogeneous data processing should be transformed, a multi-indicator evaluation system should be constructed, and qualitative and quantitative methods should be combined to make the evaluation more comprehensive and scientific.
[1] 耿斌, 孙建军. 在线学术社交平台的用户行为研究——以ResearchGate平台南京大学用户为例[J]. 图书与情报, 2017, 37(5):47-53.
[2] 2018 Academic library collection development survey[EB/OL].[2021-05-30]. https://www.ebscohost.com/assets-infographics/Collection-Development-Trends-in-Academic-Libraries-Infographic.pdf.
[3] 周春雷, 陈艳云, 袁扬. 刍议学术图书质量评价研究之现状、问题及对策[J].现代情报,2019,39(1):161-168.
[4] 孙勇中, 袁曦临, 钱鹏. 外文核心学术图书模糊综合评价体系的建立[J]. 图书情报工作, 2007, 51(6):134-138.
[5] 熊霞, 高凡, 郭丽君. 外文电子图书学术影响力评价方法探讨——基于BKCI、Scopus Article Metrics、Bookmetrix的实例比较[J]. 现代情报, 2016, 36(10):118-122.
[6] 林晓华. 基于Altmetrics工具的电子图书学术影响力评价体系构建——以Springer电子图书为例[J]. 出版发行研究, 2016(4):85-89.
[7] 雷淑义, 吕先竞. Altmetrics视角下的学术图书影响力评价研究[J]. 西南民族大学学报(人文社科版), 2017, 38(6):225-231.
[8] 雷淑义, 吕先竞. 我国人文社会科学学术图书Altmetrics评价:挑战及应用[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(11):133-139.
[9] 许洁, 王嘉昀. 中国人文社科学术图书国际影响力研究——以Bookmetrix平台近五年数据为例[J].出版发行研究, 2017(9):87-92.
[10] 匡登辉. 外文学术电子图书评价研究——基于Bookmetrix的实证分析[J]. 现代情报, 2018, 38(5):110-116.
[11] 杨思洛, 邢欣, 郑梦雪. 基于Bookmetrix的G20国家图书影响力比较研究[J].现代情报,2019,39(7):143-152.
[12] 马宁, 宋振世. 基于Bookmetrix的数学学科电子图书影响力评价研究[J].图书馆杂志,2019,38(3):72-79.
[13] 姜春林, 郭琪琴, 张光耀. 基于Bookmetrix学术图书评价指标的学科特征研究[J].情报杂志,2020,39(8):193-202.
[14] TORRES-SALINAS D, RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ R, ROBINSON-GARCIA N, et al. Mapping citation patterns of book chapters in the Book Citation Index[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2013, 7(2):412-424.
[15] ZUCCALA A, BREUM M, BRUUN K, et al. Metric assessments of books as families of works[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 69(1):146-157.
[16] GORRAIZ J, PURNELL P J, GLÄNZEL W. Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(7):1388-1398.
[17] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Google Book search:citation analysis for social science and the humanities[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(8):1537-1549.
[18] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M, REZAIE S. Assessing the citation impact of books:the role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 2011, 62(11):2147-2164.
[19] ROYLE P, WAUGH N. Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles[J]. BMJ open, 2015, 5(2):e006595.
[20] HAMMARFELT B. Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1419-1430.
[21] ZUCCALA A A, VERLEYSEN F T, CORNACCHIA R, et al. Altmetrics for the humanities:comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books[J]. Aslib journal of information management, 2015, 67(3):320-336.
[22] ZUCCALA A A, SOMEREN M V, BELLEN M V. A Machine-learning approach to coding book reviews as quality indicators:toward a theory of megacitation[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(11):2248-2260.
[23] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Web indicators for research evaluation:Part 3:books and non-standard outputs[J]. El profesional de la información, 2015, 24(6):724-736.
[24] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. Web indicators for research evaluation:Part 2:social media metrics[J]. El profesional de la información, 2015, 24(5):607-620.
[25] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Alternative metrics for book impact assessment:Can Choice reviews be a useful source?[C]//Proceedings of the 15th international conference on scientometrics and informetrics. Istanbul:Bogazici Universitesi, 2015:59-70.
[26] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M. Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(3):566-581.
[27] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M, ABDOLI M, et al. Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2017, 68(8):2004-2016.
[28] TORRES-SALINAS D, ROBINSON-GARCIA N, GORRAIZ J. Filling the citation gap:measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 113(3):1371-1384.
[29] SNIJDER R. Revisiting an open access monograph experiment:measuring citations and tweets 5 years later[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 109(3):1855-1875.
[30] ZHOU Q Q, ZHANG C Z, ZHAO S X et al. Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3):1435-1455.
[31] ERFANMANESH M, NOORHIDAWATI A, ABRIZAH A. What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature's books[J]. Scientometrics, 2019, 121(1):521-536.
[32] 塞沃尔. 链接分析:信息科学的研究方法[M]. 孙建军,译. 南京:东南大学出版社, 2009:34.
[33] 卢冶飞, 孙忠宝. 应用统计学[M]. 2 版. 北京:清华大学出版社, 2015:36-48.
[34] WANG K, LIU X, HAN Y. Exploring Goodreads reviews for book impact assessment[J]. Journal of informetrics, 2019, 13(3):874-886.
[35] 韩雨彤, 周雨涵, 杨伟超, 等. 面向学术图书的Altmetrics指标分析[J].图书情报工作,2018,62(14):91-97.
[36] YAN K K, GERSTEIN M. The spread of scientific information:insights from the web usage statistics in PLOS article-level metrics[J]. PLOS one, 2011, 6(5):e19917.
[37] KUHN T S. Second thoughts on paradigms[J]. The structure of scientific theories, 1974, 2:459-482.
[38] ZACK M H. Managing codified knowledge[J]. Sloan management review, 1999, 40(4):45-58.
[39] 黄速建, 黄群慧. 中国管理科学发展研究报告[M]. 北京:经济管理出版社,2007.
[40] LI X, THELWALL M. F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators[C]//Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. Montréal:Science-Metrix and OST, 2012:451-551.
[41] 肖敖夏, 杨思洛. Bookmetrix指标在学术图书影响力评价中的应用[J]. 图书馆论坛,2020,40(9):79-85.
[42] WEI M, CHAKOLI A N. Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 125(3):2401-2420.
[43] 李长玲, 刘运梅, 牌艳欣. 基于学科差别的论文影响力评价指标特征分析及体系构建[J].情报资料工作,2019,40(6):23-29.
