Search

Metadata is more important than ever for information and content providers, playing a critical role in digital transformations, machine learning, collaborations, accessibility, analytics, and more. But, for all the discussion in our industry about metadata for scholarly communications, we lack a shared framework for assessing its impact on commercial goals, users’ experiences, and other objectives. This project was inspired by Crossref’s call to take up independent research that explores how new methods or metrics could assess metadata performance and its value to information users. With our interest in academic books and a passion for the information experiences of today’s learners, scholars, and authors, we designed this project to illuminate the discoverability of books with and without DOIs in Google Scholar.

Trabajo del proyecto 'Cartografía de la edición académica Iberoamericana' Este proyecto cuenta con el apoyo del Ministerio de Cultura y Deporte y la Federación del Gremio de Editores de España. Desarrollado por el Grupo de Investigación sobre el Libro Académico (ILIA) del Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

The Academic Library as Scholarly Publisher Bibliography, Version 2 includes over 175 selected English-language articles, books, and technical reports that are useful in understanding the digital scholarly publishing activities of academic libraries since the late 1980's, especially their open access book and journal publishing activities. The bibliography covers the following subtopics: pioneering academic library publishing projects in the 1980's and 1990's, early digital journals and serials published by librarians (as distinct from libraries), library-based scholarly publishing since the Budapest Open Access Initiative, technical publishing infrastructure, and library and university press mergers/partnerships and other relevant works. Most sources have been published from January 2002 through July 2021; however, a limited number of earlier key sources are also included. The bibliography has links to included works. Abstracts are included in this bibliography if a work is under certain Creative Commons Attribution licenses.

Scholarly books are important outputs in some fields and their many publishing formats seem to introduce opportunities to scrutinize their impact. As there is a growing interest in the publisher-enforced massive collection of ebooks in libraries in the past decade, this study examined how this influences the relationship that library print holdings (LPH), library electronic holdings (LEH) and total library holdings (TLH) have with other metrics. As a follow up study to a previous research on OCLC library holdings, the relationship between library holdings and twelve other metrics including Scopus Citations, Google Books (GB) Citations, Goodreads engagements, and Altmetric indicators were examined for 119,794 Scopus-indexed book titles across 26 fields. Present study confirms the weak correlation levels observed between TLH and other indicators in previous studies and contributes additional evidence that print holdings can moderately reflect research, educational and online impact of books consistently more efficient than eholdings and total holdings across fields and over time, except for Mendeley for which eholdings slightly prevailed. Regression models indicated that along with other dimensions, Google Books Citations frequently best explained LPH (in 14 out of 26 fields), whereas Goodreads User counts were weak, but the best predictor of both LEH and TLH (in 15 fields out of 26), suggesting significant association of eholdings with online uptake of books. Overall, findings suggest that inclusion of eholdings overrides the more impactful counts of print holdings in Total Library Holdings metric and therefore undermines the statistical results, whilst print holdings has both statistically and theoretically promising underlying assumptions for prediction of impact of books and shows greater promise than the general Library Holding metric for book impact assessment. Thus, there is a need for a distinction between print and electronic holding counts to be made, otherwise total library holding data need to be interpreted with caution. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04239-9.

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland (https://www.gov.pl/nauka/) within the DIALOG Programme: the project title ‘Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art’. Tim Engels and Raf Guns thank the Flemish government for its funding of the Center for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers’ names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study’s objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers’ claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers’ names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.

The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, I present the scholarly book publications patterns of Polish scholars. Secondly, I show how scholarly book publications are assessed in various European research evaluation systems. Moreover, I argue that the diversity of evaluation models depends on the scientific policy aims in a given country. This presentation of European models allows me to discuss a new Polish science policy instrument, that is the list of publishers prepared for the upcoming evaluation exercise in 2021. In 2018, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland implemented a new model of scholarly book publication assessment based on the list of publishers. On the one hand, such a scien- ce policy instrument might be a way to appreciate the best quality scholarly books and give them more points than articles in the evaluation exercise. On the other hand, it is a so far unknown instrument which differentiates publications that have been treated the same up to date. Additionally, this paper aims to shed some light on how the new Polish model was prepared.

In the past decade, a number of initiatives have been taken to provide new sources of information on scholarly book publishing. Thomson Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics) has supplemented the Web of Science with a Book Citation Index (BCI), while Elsevier has extended Scopus to include books from a selection of scholarly publishers. More complete metadata on scholarly book publishing can be derived at the national level from non-commercial databases such as Current Research Information System in Norway and the VIRTA (Higher Education Achievement Register, Finland) publication information service, including the Finnish Publication Forum (JUFO) lists (Finland). The Spanish Scholarly Publishers Indicators provides survey-based information on the prestige, specialization profiles from metadata, and manuscript selection processes of national and international publishers that are particularly relevant for the social sciences and humanities (SSH). In the present work, the five information sources mentioned above are compared in a quantitative analysis identifying overlaps and uniqueness as well as differences in the degrees and profiles of coverage. In a second-stage analysis, the geographical origin of the university presses (UPs) is given a particular focus. We find that selection criteria strongly differ, ranging from a set of a priori criteria combined with expert-panel review in the case of commercial databases to in principle comprehensive coverage within a definition in the Nordic countries and an open survey methodology combined with metadata from the book industry database and questionnaires to publishers in Spain. Larger sets of distinct book publishers are found in the noncommercial databases, and greater geographical diversity is observable among the UPs in these information systems. While a more locally oriented set of publishers which are relevant to researchers in the SSH is present in non-commercial databases, the commercial databases seem to focus on highly selective procedures by which the coverage concentrates on prestigious international publishers, mainly based in the USA or UK and serving the natural sciences, engineering, and medicine.

[EN] This article analyses the situation of so-called ‘peripheral’ journals with regard to their publication context. Hence, models relying on voluntarism, with scarce means, and designed to protect a specific type of research and language, are opposed to the practice of publishing with a highly professionalized international scope in terms of market. The different positionings with regard to Open Access is also examined. In addition, the article addresses the difficulties which these journals experience in order to attain a better recognition in the evaluation processes and claim the need of the existence of complete data sources at the national level as well as the specific international databases for the Humanities, such as ERIH. Finally, the relevance of books in the research carried out in field of Humanities is analysed and details concerning Scholarly Publishers Indicators as a source of support in evaluation processes are provided., [ES] Este artículo analiza la situación de las revistas científicas “periféricas” en relación con el contexto en el que se publican. Se contraponen por tanto los modelos de edición voluntaristas, con pocos medios, que protegen un tipo de investigación y un idioma, con la edición internacional más profesionalizada en términos de mercado. Se examinan también los distintos posicionamientos con respecto al Open Access. Asimismo se abordan las dificultades que tienen estas revistas para ser mejor reconocidas en los procesos de evaluación y se reivindican las fuentes completas de datos a nivel nacional así como las fuentes internacionales específicas para Humanidades, como ERIH. Finalmente, se analiza la relevancia del libro en la investigación en Humanidades y se ofrecen detalles de Scholarly Publishers Indicators, como fuente de apoyo para su evaluación.

Este artículo analiza la situación de las revistas científicas “periféricas” en relación con el contexto en el que se publican. Se contraponen por tanto los modelos de edición voluntaristas, con pocos medios, que protegen un tipo de investigación y un idioma, con la edición internacional más profesionalizada en términos de mercado. Se examinan también los distintos posicionamientos con respecto al Open Access. Asimismo se abordan las dificultades que tienen estas revistas para ser mejor reconocidas en los procesos de evaluación y se reivindican las fuentes completas de datos a nivel nacional así como las fuentes internacionales específicas para Humanidades, como ERIH. Finalmente, se analiza la relevancia del libro en la investigación en Humanidades y se ofrecen detalles de Scholarly Publishers Indicators, como fuente de apoyo para su evaluación. This article analyses the situation of so-called ‘peripheral’ journals with regard to their publication context. Hence, models relying on voluntarism, with scarce means, and designed to protect a specific type of research and language, are opposed to the practice of publishing with a highly professionalized international scope in terms of market. The different positionings with regard to Open Access is also examined. In addition, the article addresses the difficulties which these journals experience in order to attain a better recognition in the evaluation processes and claim the need of the existence of complete data sources at the national level as well as the specific international databases for the Humanities, such as ERIH. Finally, the relevance of books in the research carried out in field of Humanities is analysed and details concerning Scholarly Publishers Indicators as a source of support in evaluation processes are provided.

[EN] Scholarly books have been a periphery among the objects of study of bibliometrics until recent developments provided tools for assessment purposes. Among scholarly book publishers, University Presses (UPs hereinafter), subject to specific ends and constrains in their publishing activity, might also remain on a second-level periphery despite their relevance as scholarly book publishers. In this study the authors analyze the absolute and relative presence, overlap and uniquely-indexed cases of 503 UPs by country, among five assessment-oriented databases containing data on scholarly book publishers: Book Citation Index, Scopus, Scholarly Publishers Indicators (Spain), the lists of publishers from the Norwegian System (CRISTIN) and the lists of publishers from the Finnish System (JUFO). The comparison between commercial databases and public, national databases points towards a differential pattern: prestigious UPs in the English Speaking world represent larger shares and there is a higher overall percentage of UPs in the commercial databases, while the richness and diversity is higher in the case of national databases. Explicit or de facto biases towards production in English by commercial databases, as well as diverse indexation criteria might explain the differences observed. The analysis of the presence of UPs in different numbers of databases by country also provides a general picture of the average degree of diffusion of UPs among information systems. The analysis of ‘endemic’ UPs, those indexed only in one of the five databases points out to strongly different compositions of UPs in commercial and non-commercial databases. A combination of commercial and non commercial databases seems to be the optimal option for assessment purposes while the validity and desirability of the ongoing debate on the role of UPs can be also concluded., This research has been carried out in the framework of the Project CSO2015-63693, ‘Las prensas universitarias iberoamericanas y el libro científico en español: calidad, modelos de negocio y política institucional’ funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness

Среди книг академика Н. П. Лихачева, хранящихся в фондах библиотеки Санкт-Петербургского института истории, выявлено около 700 экземпляров с дарственными надписями. Эти экземпляры рассмотрены с нескольких точек зрения: само издание (научное или иное, книга или оттиск статьи, тематика, год, место издания), автор надписи (отношение к данному изданию, профессия) и собственно дарственная надпись (содержание, дата). Все подаренные издания можно назвать научными. Из них 65 % являются книгами и брошюрами, 35 % оттисками статей и вырезками. Тематический спектр изданий очень широк, но при этом не выходит за рамки профессиональных интересов самого Н. П. Лихачева. 38 % даров изданы в Петербурге-Петрограде-Ленинграде, 21 % в Москве, 41 % в других городах (Российской империи, Европы и Америки). Подавляющее количество автографов принадлежит авторам подаренных изданий. Количество подаренных книг растет в 1880-х 1900-х гг., затем до 1930 г. остается на достигнутом уровне. Более 80 % изданий подарены вскоре после выхода из печати. 75 % надписей выдержаны в «академическом» стиле: они состоят из двух частей «кому» с почтительным эпитетом и «от кого» или «такой-то» с выражением уважения или благодарности адресату. Работа демонстрирует широкое распространение в гуманитарной среде 1880-х 1920-х гг. обыкновения дарить свои книги коллегам, разнообразие научных контактов, престиж исторической науки, демократизм академической среды и значительное место Н. П. Лихачева в научной жизни его времени., About 700 books of academician N. P. Likhachev (1862-1936) at the Library of St Petersburg Institute of History were found to bear a dedicatory inscription. These items are considered in the article from several points of view: the type of publication (scholarly or otherwise, the book or off-print, subject-matter, year, place of publication), the author of the dedicatory inscription (relation to the publication, profession) and the inscription itself (content, date). All the publications in question proved scholarly. Of these, 65 % are books and pamphlets and 35 % are off-prints and press-cuttings. The thematic range of publications is very wide, but it is not beyond the professional interests of N. P. Likhachev. 38 % of the items with a dedicatory inscription were published in St Petersburg / Petrograd / Leningrad and 21 % in Moscow. The remaining 41 % of them were issued in various cities of the Russian Empire, Europe and America. The majority of the items were presented by the authors of publications. The number of the books received by N. P. Likhachev as a gift was growing in the 1880s-1900s, and then until 1930 remained at the same level. More than 80 % of publications were presented to N. P. Likhachev shortly after their coming out. 75 % of the inscriptions are written in academic style: they consist of two parts the addressee with a respectful epithet and the name of a person presenting the given publication, accompanied by an expression of respect and gratitude to the addressee. For the period 1880-1920 the article illustrates the widespread academic habit of presenting scholarly books to colleagues, a variety of scholarly contacts, the prestige of studying history, the democratic character of academic environment and a significant role of N. P. Likhachev in the scholarly life of his time.

Knowledge Unlatched es una iniciativa de colaboración entre bibliotecas y editores en todo el mundo para facilitar un modelo de acceso abierto sostenible a los libros en un mercado dinámico y floreciente. A principios de 2014 arrancó su proyecto piloto para publicar varios centenares de libros académicos en acceso abierto y hablamos con su directora, Frances Pinter, sobre las motivaciones para proponer este modelo alternativo y sus características principales.

Can scholarly journal articles and other scholarly works be made freely available on the Internet? The open access movement says "yes," and it is having a significant impact on scholarly publishing. There are two major open access strategies: (1) open access journals publish articles (typically peer-reviewed articles) that are free of charge and may be able to be reused under an open license (e.g., a Creative Commons license), and (2) self-archiving of digital eprints (typically prepublication versions of articles) by authors in digital repositories, where they can be accessed free of charge and sometimes reused. Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography, which has over 1,100 references, provides in-depth coverage of published journal articles, books, and other works about the open access movement. Many references have links to freely available copies of included works. It is under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. Cite as: Bailey, Charles W., Jr. Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography. Houston: Digital Scholarship, 2010.