3.67
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/619162
Title:
Goodreads Reviews to Assess the Wider Impacts of Books
Authors:
Kousha, Kayvan ( 0000-0003-4827-971X ) ; Thelwall, Mike ( 0000-0001-6065-205X ) ; Abdoli, Mahshid
Abstract:
Although peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the Arts (85% of books had at least one), Humanities (80%) and Social Sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.
Publisher:
John Wiley & Sons
Journal:
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Issue Date:
2016
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/619162
Additional Links:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2330-1643
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
2330-1635
Appears in Collections:
Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKousha, Kayvanen
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mikeen
dc.contributor.authorAbdoli, Mahshiden
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-31T15:37:56Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-31T15:37:56Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.issn2330-1635en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/619162-
dc.description.abstractAlthough peer-review and citation counts are commonly used to help assess the scholarly impact of published research, informal reader feedback might also be exploited to help assess the wider impacts of books, such as their educational or cultural value. The social website Goodreads seems to be a reasonable source for this purpose because it includes a large number of book reviews and ratings by many users inside and outside of academia. To check this, Goodreads book metrics were compared with different book-based impact indicators for 15,928 academic books across broad fields. Goodreads engagements were numerous enough in the Arts (85% of books had at least one), Humanities (80%) and Social Sciences (67%) for use as a source of impact evidence. Low and moderate correlations between Goodreads book metrics and scholarly or non-scholarly indicators suggest that reader feedback in Goodreads reflects the many purposes of books rather than a single type of impact. Although Goodreads book metrics can be manipulated they could be used guardedly by academics, authors, and publishers in evaluations.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sonsen
dc.relation.urlhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2330-1643en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectGoodreadsen
dc.subjectBook impacten
dc.subjectaltmetricsen
dc.subjectsocial book reviewsen
dc.titleGoodreads Reviews to Assess the Wider Impacts of Booksen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technologyen
dc.date.accepted2016-08-25-
rioxxterms.funderInternalen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUoW310816KKen
rioxxterms.versionAMen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-09-01en
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.