The impact of publishing houses and subjects on the citation quantity and frequency of books
Qianhe Gao
International Business School, Shandong Technology and Business University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/bam.v7i2.10514
Keywords: Citation quantity; Citation frequency; Publishing houses; Subjects; Academic evaluation
Abstract
This study probes the impact of publishers and subjects on book citation metrics. Despite prior research on citation influence, the effects of publishing houses and subjects on citation counts were underexposed. The research tasks involved analyzing data from CNKI’s “Most Academic Influential Publishing House (2014 - 2023)” on 587 publishers, 17 disciplines, and numerous books. Use the R language for overall data analysis and apply the ANOVA model to test the correlation of these data, ultimately drawing conclusions through the tests. For cited book numbers, ANOVA shows both publishing house type (non-university presses higher) and subject (natural sciences and tech more) matter. For citation frequency per book, subject is key (philosophy and social sciences higher), not publishing house type. Discussion reveals these findings align with some literature, enriching academic evaluation theory. However, data reliance on CNKI limits generalization, and insufficient factor interaction analysis may miss nuances. Future research should expand factors and globally validate findings.
References
[1]Fang, H. (2018). Analysing the variation tendencies of the numbers of yearly citations for sleeping beauties in science by using derivative analysis. Scientometrics, 115(1), 1051–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2687-9
[2]Hutchins, B. I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J. M., & Santangelo, G. M. (2016). Relative Citation Ratio (RCR):A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level. PLoS Biology, 14(9), e1002541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541
[3]Liu, C., & Huang, M.-H. (2022). Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis. Scientometrics, 127, 4939–4958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04456-w
[4]Liu, X.-L., Gai, S.-S., Zhang, S.-L., & Wang, P. (2015). An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0135583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135583
[5]Madhugiri, V. S., & Venkatesan, S. (2024). Does reader engagement with neurosurgery journal websites correlate with the number of citations received by articles? Neurology India, 72(2), 352-357. https://doi.org/10.4103/ni.ni_38_22
[6]McGillivray, B., & Astell, M. (2019). The relationship between usage and citations in an open access megajournal. Scientometrics, 121(2), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03228-3
[7]Onodera, N., & Yoshikane, F. (2014). Factors affecting citation rates of research articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 739–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23209
[8]Qian, Y., Rong, W., Jiang, N., Tang, J., & Xiong, Z. (2017). Citation regression analysis of computer science publications in different ranking categories and subfields. Scientometrics, 110(2), 1351–1374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2235-4
[9]Rostami, F., Mohammadpoorasl, A., & Hajizadeh, M. (2014). The effect of characteristics of title on citation rates of articles. Scientometrics, 98(2), 2007–2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1118-1
[10]Wu, D., Wu, H., & Li, J. (2024). Citation advantage of positive words: predictability, temporal evolution, and universality in varied quality journals. Scientometrics, 129, 4275–4293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05074-4
[11] Yang, L., Han, L., & Liu, N. (2019). A new approach to journal co-citation matrix construction based on the number of co-cited articles in journals. Scientometrics, 120(2), 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03141-9