IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v115y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2679-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A study of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI journals by researchers from five countries: 2006–2015

Author

Listed:
  • Yaoyu Wei

    (Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University
    Huazhong Agricultural University)

  • Weiwei Fan

    (Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University)

Abstract

This article reports a study on the publications of book reviews by researchers from USA, Germany, Japan, China, and India. The Web of Science database was used to obtain the data concerning the publications of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI and A&HCI indexed journals from 2006 to 2015. Several results of interest were found. First, the results showed that the annual outputs of book reviews by researchers from Germany, Japan, China, and India increased significantly. Second, the number of book reviews contributed by researchers from Japan, China, and India is much lower than researchers from traditional scientific powers such as USA and Germany. Third, book reviews are published more in areas of social science and arts and humanities than in those of science and technology. Fourth, book reviews are much less cited than publications of other types are.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaoyu Wei & Weiwei Fan, 2018. "A study of book reviews in SCI-Expanded, SSCI, and A&HCI journals by researchers from five countries: 2006–2015," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 637-654, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2679-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2679-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2679-9
    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/s11192-018-2679-9?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. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline Wagner, 2009. "Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 23-36, January.
    2. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    3. Liu, Weishu & Hu, Guangyuan & Tang, Li & Wang, Yuandi, 2015. "China's global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 555-569.
    4. P�ivi Oinas & Samuli Lepp�l�, 2013. "Views on Book Reviews," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1785-1789, November.
    5. Richard Van Noorden, 2016. "China by the numbers," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7608), pages 452-453, June.
    6. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    7. n/a, 2016. "Book Reviews," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4).
    8. Juana Paul Moiwo & Fulu Tao, 2013. "The changing dynamics in citation index publication position China in a race with the USA for global leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(3), pages 1031-1050, June.
    9. James Hartley, 2006. "Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(9), pages 1194-1207, July.
    10. Jeppe Nicolaisen, 2002. "The scholarliness of published peer reviews: a bibliometric study of book reviews in selected social science fields," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 129-140, December.
    11. Amanda Spink & David Robins & Linda Schamber, 1998. "Use of scholarly book reviews: Implications for electronic publishing and scholarly communication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(4), pages 364-374.
    12. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    13. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    14. Zhang, Han & Patton, Donald & Kenney, Martin, 2013. "Building global-class universities: Assessing the impact of the 985 Project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 765-775.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Weishu Liu & Yishan Ding & Mengdi Gu, 2017. "Book reviews in academic journals: patterns and dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 355-364, January.
    2. Chan-Yuan Wong, 2019. "A century of scientific publication: towards a theorization of growth behavior and research-orientation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 357-377, April.
    3. Juan Gorraiz & Christian Gumpenberger & Philip J. Purnell, 2014. "The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 841-852, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Zhenyue Zhao & Xuelian Pan & Weina Hua, 2021. "Comparative analysis of the research productivity, publication quality, and collaboration patterns of top ranked library and information science schools in China and the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 931-950, February.
    6. P�ivi Oinas & Samuli Lepp�l�, 2013. "Views on Book Reviews," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1785-1789, November.
    7. Alesia Zuccala & Thed van Leeuwen, 2011. "Book reviews in humanities research evaluations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1979-1991, October.
    8. Elea Giménez-Toledo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez & Tim C. E. Engels & Peter Ingwersen & Janne Pölönen & Gunnar Sivertsen & Frederik T. Verleysen & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2016. "Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 685-699, May.
    9. Jiang, Hanchen & Qiang, Maoshan & Fan, Qixiang & Zhang, Mengqing, 2018. "Scientific research driven by large-scale infrastructure projects: A case study of the Three Gorges Project in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 61-71.
    10. 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.
    11. Yves Gingras & Mahdi Khelfaoui, 2018. "Assessing the effect of the United States’ “citation advantage” on other countries’ scientific impact as measured in the Web of Science (WoS) database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 517-532, February.
    12. Gregory J Hather & Winston Haynes & Roger Higdon & Natali Kolker & Elizabeth A Stewart & Peter Arzberger & Patrick Chain & Dawn Field & B Robert Franza & Biaoyang Lin & Folker Meyer & Vural Ozdemir & , 2010. "The United States of America and Scientific Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-9, August.
    13. Thed Leeuwen & Rodrigo Costas & Clara Calero-Medina & Martijn Visser, 2013. "The role of editorial material in bibliometric research performance assessments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 817-828, May.
    14. Olesia Iefremova & Kamil Wais & Marcin Kozak, 2018. "Biographical articles in scientific literature: analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1695-1719, December.
    15. Nobuyuki Shirakawa & Takao Furukawa & Minoru Nomura & Kumi Okuwada, 2012. "Global competition and technological transition in electrical, electronic, information and communication engineering: quantitative analysis of periodicals and conference proceedings of the IEEE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 895-910, June.
    16. Sujit Bhattacharya & Shilpa & Arshia Kaul, 2015. "Emerging countries assertion in the global publication landscape of science: a case study of India," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 387-411, May.
    17. Yang Liu & Jinyuan Ma & Huanyu Song & Ziniu Qian & Xiao Lin, 2021. "Chinese Universities’ Cross-Border Research Collaboration in the Social Sciences and Its Impact," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-19, September.
    18. Jingyi Zhao & Chunli Wei & Jiang Li, 2023. "Is the research performance of Chinese returnees better than that of their local counterparts?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3091-3105, May.
    19. Julian Hamann & Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, 2022. "Biographical representation, from narrative to list: The evolution of curricula vitae in the humanities, 1950 to 2010," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 438-451.
    20. 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.

    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:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2679-9. 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.