Alesia Zuccala - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Alesia Zuccala
Journal of Informetrics, Nov 1, 2022
Research Evaluation, Aug 22, 2012
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
ABSTRACT A theory of “megacitation” is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a ... more ABSTRACT A theory of “megacitation” is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and “libcitations” (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2015
ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of Goodreads reader ratings f... more ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of Goodreads reader ratings for measuring the wider impact of scholarly books published in the field of History. Design/methodology/approach – Book titles were extracted from the reference lists of articles that appeared in 604 history journals indexed in Scopus (2007-2011). The titles were cleaned and matched with WorldCat.org (for publisher information) as well as Goodreads (for reader ratings) using an API. A set of 8,538 books was first filtered based on Dewey Decimal Classification class 900 " History and Geography " , then a subset of 997 books with the highest citations and reader ratings (i.e. top 25 per cent) was analysed separately based on additional characteristics. Findings – A weak correlation (0.212) was found between citation counts and reader rating counts for the full data set (n ¼ 8,538). An additional correlation for the subset of 997 books indicated a similar weak correlation (0.190). Further correlations between citations, reader ratings, written reviews, and library holdings indicate that a reader rating on Goodreads was more likely to be given to a book held in an international library, including both public and academic libraries. Originality/value – Research on altmetrics has focused almost exclusively on scientific journal articles appearing on social media services (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). In this paper we show the potential of Goodreads reader ratings to identify the impact of books beyond academia. As a unique altmetric data source, Goodreads can allow scholarly authors from the social sciences and humanities to measure the wider impact of their books.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
Scientometrics, 2010
This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mat... more This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mathematical Review system and the reviewer's role in mathematics. We focus on a set of journal articles (369) published in Singularity Theory (1974-2003), the mathematicians who wrote editorial reviews for these articles, and the number of citations each reviewed article received within a 5 year period. Our research hypothesis is that the cognitive authority of a high status reviewer plays a positive role in how well a new article is received and cited by others. Bibliometric evidence points to the contrary: Singularity Theorists of lower status (junior researchers) have reviewed slightly more well-cited articles (2-5 citations, excluding author self-citations) than their higher status counterparts (senior researchers). One explanation for this result is that lower status researchers may have been asked to review 'trendy' or more accessible parts of mathematics, which are easie...
Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries - JCDL '06, 2006
The purpose of this demonstration is to show how LexiURL may be used with a search engine to down... more The purpose of this demonstration is to show how LexiURL may be used with a search engine to download links to and colinks with a digital library site for "Web intelligence" purposes..
Research Evaluation, 2012
ABSTRACT We examine literary work as a product of the scholar’s ‘educated imagination’ and review... more ABSTRACT We examine literary work as a product of the scholar’s ‘educated imagination’ and review features of this performance culture (i.e. quality, quantity, impact, influence, and importance), which lend themselves to evaluation. Insights are drawn from the research and commentaries of specialists, including scholars of literature and bibliometricians. Peer review, as it is seen in book reviews, plays a critical role in how literary quality is perceived, while citations, from books and journal articles may be used to trace patterns of influence. To evaluate literary work as a whole, we suggest distinguishing between different types of production, vocational and epistemic, and orchestrating data systems that allow for combined measures of quality, scholarly influence, and cultural influence.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006
Journal of Informetrics, Nov 1, 2022
Research Evaluation, Aug 22, 2012
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
ABSTRACT A theory of “megacitation” is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a ... more ABSTRACT A theory of “megacitation” is introduced and used in an experiment to demonstrate how a qualitative scholarly book review can be converted into a weighted bibliometric indicator. We employ a manual human-coding approach to classify book reviews in the field of history based on reviewers' assessments of a book author's scholarly credibility (SC) and writing style (WS). In total, 100 book reviews were selected from the American Historical Review and coded for their positive/negative valence on these two dimensions. Most were coded as positive (68% for SC and 47% for WS), and there was also a small positive correlation between SC and WS (r = 0.2). We then constructed a classifier, combining both manual design and machine learning, to categorize sentiment-based sentences in history book reviews. The machine classifier produced a matched accuracy (matched to the human coding) of approximately 75% for SC and 64% for WS. WS was found to be more difficult to classify by machine than SC because of the reviewers' use of more subtle language. With further training data, a machine-learning approach could be useful for automatically classifying a large number of history book reviews at once. Weighted megacitations can be especially valuable if they are used in conjunction with regular book/journal citations, and “libcitations” (i.e., library holding counts) for a comprehensive assessment of a book/monograph's scholarly impact.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2015
ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of Goodreads reader ratings f... more ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to assess the value of Goodreads reader ratings for measuring the wider impact of scholarly books published in the field of History. Design/methodology/approach – Book titles were extracted from the reference lists of articles that appeared in 604 history journals indexed in Scopus (2007-2011). The titles were cleaned and matched with WorldCat.org (for publisher information) as well as Goodreads (for reader ratings) using an API. A set of 8,538 books was first filtered based on Dewey Decimal Classification class 900 " History and Geography " , then a subset of 997 books with the highest citations and reader ratings (i.e. top 25 per cent) was analysed separately based on additional characteristics. Findings – A weak correlation (0.212) was found between citation counts and reader rating counts for the full data set (n ¼ 8,538). An additional correlation for the subset of 997 books indicated a similar weak correlation (0.190). Further correlations between citations, reader ratings, written reviews, and library holdings indicate that a reader rating on Goodreads was more likely to be given to a book held in an international library, including both public and academic libraries. Originality/value – Research on altmetrics has focused almost exclusively on scientific journal articles appearing on social media services (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). In this paper we show the potential of Goodreads reader ratings to identify the impact of books beyond academia. As a unique altmetric data source, Goodreads can allow scholarly authors from the social sciences and humanities to measure the wider impact of their books.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
Scientometrics, 2010
This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mat... more This paper revisits an aspect of citation theory (i.e., citer motivation) with respect to the Mathematical Review system and the reviewer's role in mathematics. We focus on a set of journal articles (369) published in Singularity Theory (1974-2003), the mathematicians who wrote editorial reviews for these articles, and the number of citations each reviewed article received within a 5 year period. Our research hypothesis is that the cognitive authority of a high status reviewer plays a positive role in how well a new article is received and cited by others. Bibliometric evidence points to the contrary: Singularity Theorists of lower status (junior researchers) have reviewed slightly more well-cited articles (2-5 citations, excluding author self-citations) than their higher status counterparts (senior researchers). One explanation for this result is that lower status researchers may have been asked to review 'trendy' or more accessible parts of mathematics, which are easie...
Proceedings of the 6th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries - JCDL '06, 2006
The purpose of this demonstration is to show how LexiURL may be used with a search engine to down... more The purpose of this demonstration is to show how LexiURL may be used with a search engine to download links to and colinks with a digital library site for "Web intelligence" purposes..
Research Evaluation, 2012
ABSTRACT We examine literary work as a product of the scholar’s ‘educated imagination’ and review... more ABSTRACT We examine literary work as a product of the scholar’s ‘educated imagination’ and review features of this performance culture (i.e. quality, quantity, impact, influence, and importance), which lend themselves to evaluation. Insights are drawn from the research and commentaries of specialists, including scholars of literature and bibliometricians. Peer review, as it is seen in book reviews, plays a critical role in how literary quality is perceived, while citations, from books and journal articles may be used to trace patterns of influence. To evaluate literary work as a whole, we suggest distinguishing between different types of production, vocational and epistemic, and orchestrating data systems that allow for combined measures of quality, scholarly influence, and cultural influence.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006