[Purpose/significance] To improve the inadequacy of the current book evaluation system in reflecting the quality of book content, book review indicators are adopted into the evaluation system, and different disciplines of book are applied to analyze the adaptability of the evaluation system to explore the evaluation of Chinese book quality.[Method/process] Sixteen indicators were selected from traditional measurement indicators, Altmetrics indicators and book review indicators to construct a comprehensive evaluation system for Chinese books empowered by the CRITIC method, while economics, computer science and physics books were selected for an empirical study to analyze the utility of book review indicators in book quality evaluation and to test the adaptability of the evaluation system in evaluating books of different disciplines.[Result/conclusion] The empirical results show that the comprehensive evaluation system of Chinese books has good adaptability for books of different disciplines, and the evaluation results can complement the influence and quality of books reflected by total citations and libcitations; the book review indicators can reflect the reading tendency of readers in different disciplines, and help screen out disciplinary books with high readability, scientificity and knowledge, thus providing reference for book quality evaluation activities such as reading promotion and bibliographic recommendation.
Zhu Shiqin
,
Qiu Yue
,
Chen Hongying
. Research on the Adaptability of Chinese Book Comprehensive Evaluation System Incorporated with Review Indicators[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021
, 65(9)
: 23
-31
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.003
[1] 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 and Technology, 2011, 62(11):2147-2164.
[2] 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 and Technology, 2009, 60(6):1083-1096.
[3] LINMANS A J M. Why with bibliometrics the Humanities does not need to be the weakest link[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 83(2):337-354.
[4] CABEZAS-CLAVIJO L, ROBINSON-GARCÍA N, TORRES-SALINAS D, et al. Most borrowed is most cited? library loan statistics as a proxy for monograph selection in citation indexes[EB/OL].[2020-11-01]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1488.
[5] BJÖRN H. Using Altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1419-1430.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] NAN X, LI M, SHI J. Using altmetrics for assessing impact of highly-cited books in Chinese Book Citation Index[J]. Scientometrics, 2020, 122(3):1651-1669.
[9] 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.
[10] KOUSHA K, THELWALL M, ABDOLI M. Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 2017,68(8):2004-2016.
[11] 章成志,童甜甜,周清清.整合不同评论平台的图书综合影响力评价研究[J].情报学报, 2018,37(9):861-873.
[12] 李雁翎,孙晓慧,陈玖冰.五维图书评价体系及分析模型的建构[J].情报科学,2013, 31(8):77-80,140.
[13] 刘利,袁曦临.外文学术图书质量评价实证研究[J].图书情报工作,2011(21):93-97, 102.
[14] 杨毓丽,丁媛,张苏.基于ESI单本外文图书质量评价体系实证研究——以计算机学科为例[J].图书馆杂志,2015(7):11-18.
[15] 何峻,蔡蓉华.中文图书评价体系研究[J].大学图书馆学报,2016,34(3):51-58,15.
[16] 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.
[17] 周清清,章成志.图书影响力评价研究进展与展望[J].大学图书馆学报,2020,38(3):24-33.
[18] 李明,李江,陈铭,等.中文学术图书引文量与Altmetrics指标探索性分析及其启示[J].情报学报,2019,38(6):557-567.
