Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX.Design/methodology/approachThe authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate’s Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com’s capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX.FindingsAltmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools.Practical implicationsThis study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool.Originality/valueThis is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com’s functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.
Highlights
Many types of indicators have been suggested for the evaluation of books (Zuccala and Robinson-Garcia, forthcoming)
We find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books
Bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields
Summary
Many types of indicators have been suggested for the evaluation of books (Zuccala and Robinson-Garcia, forthcoming). Most of the attention given to monographs is coming from bibliometricians specialized in the assessment of research in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH). All of this has led to a renaissance of studies devoted to this particular issue An example of such interest is the launch of the “European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences” (http://enressh.eu). This initiative includes several working groups with one of them, ‘Databases and uses of data for understanding SSH research’, which, among other goals, aims at developing alternative metrics for the SSH
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
