IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v125y2020i3d10.1007_s11192-020-03678-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention

Author

Listed:
  • Mingkun Wei

    (Hebei University)

  • Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli

    (Shahed University)

Abstract

Open access academic achievements include not only papers and journals, but also books, which have become an important achievement for scholars and can be regarded as scholarly critical products. Until recently, books have had a key role in the distribution of knowledge and the main issue is which category of open or non-open access books is more effective in academic society. Thus, this study compares the difference between open access and non-open access books in terms of knowledge distribution. We collected and analyzed data from Twitter, Mendeley, and Dimensions platform, as well as the dataset of all Springer books. Twitter and Mendeley are considered alternative metric indicators, which reflect impacts with citation indicators. Data were analyzed from static and comparative perspectives. Results showed a relationship between academic impact and social impact based on citation and social media attention for OA books, and indicated that open access books boost knowledge distribution in Twitter and Mendeley for the sample of books drawn from Springer under study. Moreover, the open access books have the added advantage of keeping sustained impact for a long time. It is sensible to assess the impact of OA books through knowledge distribution. However, there is no significant correlation between citation and social media attention regarding OA books and also the social and academic impact of books in some disciplines such as Geography, Medicine, and Public Health, Culture, and Media Studies attract more social media attention. According to the analysis, the correlation with citations for the number of mentions on social media is negligible, which indicates that social media measures bear different impacts from citations. However, social impact is similar to the complementary measures which should be considered within the impact evaluation of OA books. Therefore, only when OA books are accessed through the channels of communication can the knowledge contained in books be absorbed to generate impact, and lowering the access barrier does lead to more attention found for OA research papers. The findings demonstrated that the OA books and OA papers do not have similar impacts on the citation. Also, OA books could not attract more citations than non-OA books in some disciplines, which is why open access books have a significant impact on social media attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingkun Wei & Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, 2020. "Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2401-2420, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03678-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pablo Dorta-González & Sara M. González-Betancor & María Isabel Dorta-González, 2017. "Reconsidering the gold open access citation advantage postulate in a multidisciplinary context: an analysis of the subject categories in the Web of Science database 2009–2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 877-901, August.
    2. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    3. Emanuel Kulczycki & Tim C. E. Engels & Janne Pölönen & Kasper Bruun & Marta Dušková & Raf Guns & Robert Nowotniak & Michal Petr & Gunnar Sivertsen & Andreja Istenič Starčič & Alesia Zuccala, 2018. "Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 463-486, July.
    4. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 2018. "The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(3), pages 474-482, March.
    5. Mohamed Boufarss, 2020. "Charting the Open Access scholarly journals landscape in the UAE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1707-1725, March.
    6. Mingkun Wei, 2020. "Research on impact evaluation of open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1027-1049, February.
    7. Jian Wang & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2015. "Interdisciplinarity and Impact: Distinct Effects of Variety, Balance, and Disparity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 566-581, March.
    9. Xuemei Li & Mike Thelwall & Dean Giustini, 2012. "Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 461-471, May.
    10. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    11. Xianwen Wang & Chen Liu & Wenli Mao & Zhichao Fang, 2015. "Erratum to: The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1149-1149, June.
    12. Emanuel Kulczycki & Przemysław Korytkowski, 2020. "Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local-oriented," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1371-1387, November.
    13. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2019. "Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 467-484.
    14. Xianwen Wang & Chen Liu & Wenli Mao & Zhichao Fang, 2015. "The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 555-564, May.
    15. Yassine Gargouri & Chawki Hajjem & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Les Carr & Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad, 2010. "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-12, October.
    16. Ronald Snijder, 2016. "Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1855-1875, December.
    17. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    18. Abdelghani Maddi, 2020. "Measuring open access publications: a novel normalized open access indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 379-398, July.
    19. Donner, Paul, 2018. "Effect of publication month on citation impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 330-343.
    20. Kim Holmberg & Juha Hedman & Timothy D. Bowman & Fereshteh Didegah & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Do articles in open access journals have more frequent altmetric activity than articles in subscription-based journals? An investigation of the research output of Finnish universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 645-659, January.
    21. K. Brad Wray, 2016. "No new evidence for a citation benefit for Author-Pay Open Access Publications in the social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1031-1035, March.
    22. Xianwen Wang & Zhichao Fang & Xiaoling Sun, 2016. "Usage patterns of scholarly articles on Web of Science: a study on Web of Science usage count," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 917-926, November.
    23. Finardi, Ugo, 2014. "On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-24.
    24. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & Pei-Shan Chi, 2016. "The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2165-2179, December.
    25. Hajar Sotudeh & Zohreh Estakhr, 2018. "Sustainability of open access citation advantage: the case of Elsevier’s author-pays hybrid open access journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 563-576, April.
    26. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2017. "Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(3), pages 762-779, March.
    27. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    28. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2009. "Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(8), pages 1537-1549, August.
    29. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1627-1638, August.
    30. Anton J Nederhof, 2011. "A bibliometric study of productivity and impact of modern language and literature research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 117-129, June.
    31. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    32. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Somayeh Rezaie, 2011. "Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(11), pages 2147-2164, November.
    33. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    34. Juan Gorraiz & Philip J. Purnell & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Opportunities for and limitations of the Book Citation Index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1388-1398, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Vílchez-Román & Arístides Vara-Horna, 2021. "Usage, content and citation in open access publication: any interaction effects?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9457-9476, December.
    2. Yang Ding & Xianlei Dong & Yi Bu & Bin Zhang & Kexin Lin & Beibei Hu, 2021. "Revisiting the relationship between downloads and citations: a perspective from papers with different citation patterns in the case of the Lancet," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7609-7621, September.
    3. Ana-Beatriz Hernández-Lara & Maria-Victoria Sánchez-Rebull & Angels Niñerola, 2021. "Six Sigma in Health Literature, What Matters?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    2. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    3. Cristina López-Duarte & Marta M. Vidal-Suárez & Belén González-Díaz, 2019. "Cross-national distance and international business: an analysis of the most influential recent models," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 173-208, October.
    4. Zhiqi Wang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Yue Chen, 2020. "The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1403-1423, November.
    5. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    6. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    7. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    8. Yongjun Zhu & Erjia Yan & Silvio Peroni & Chao Che, 2020. "Nine million book items and eleven million citations: a study of book-based scholarly communication using OpenCitations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1097-1112, February.
    9. Kousha, Kayvan & Thelwall, Mike, 2018. "Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 972-984.
    10. Chi, Pei-Shan, 2016. "Differing disciplinary citation concentration patterns of book and journal literature?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 814-829.
    11. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    12. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1129-1160, February.
    13. Ronald Snijder, 2016. "Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1855-1875, December.
    14. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    15. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang & Star X. Zhao & Bikun Chen, 2016. "Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1435-1455, June.
    16. Chompunuch Saravudecha & Duangruthai Na Thungfai & Chananthida Phasom & Sodsri Gunta-in & Aorrakanya Metha & Peangkobfah Punyaphet & Tippawan Sookruay & Wannachai Sakuludomkan & Nut Koonrungsesomboon, 2023. "Hybrid Gold Open Access Citation Advantage in Clinical Medicine: Analysis of Hybrid Journals in the Web of Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-9, March.
    17. Mousumi Karmakar & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2020. "Does presence of social media plugins in a journal website result in higher social media attention of its research publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2103-2143, September.
    18. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-García & Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2014. "Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and publisher types in the book citation index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2113-2127, March.
    19. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    20. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:125:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03678-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.