|
|
|
| Combing Multiple Platforms of Online Reviews to Measure the Comprehensive Impact of Books |
| Zhang Chengzhi1,2, Tong Tiantian1, Zhou Qingqing1 |
1. Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Nanjing 210094;
2. Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC), Beijing 100038 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Currently, online book reviews are abundant and widely available on e-commerce and social network websites. Mining these reviews is important for comprehensively evaluating books and persuading customers to make purchasing decisions. However, most prior research based on book reviews mainly focused on a single review platform instead of using review data from multiple platforms, resulting, to some extent, in a one-sided evaluation. Hence, based on the quantitative analysis of book reviews across different platforms, we put forth one method to measure the comprehensive impacts of books utilizing multi-source data, which provides fresh ideas for book evaluation by collecting and integrating book reviews from social networking platforms and e-commerce websites. In this study, by taking 348 books in four subjects as an example and integrating multi-source reviews of them from an aspect perspective, we analyzed the differences between book evaluation results obtained through different integration strategies. In the end, a comparison between the results obtained by our method and traditional methods based on a single platform shows that combing multiple reviews can evaluate a book’s impact more comprehensively and avoid the limitations of traditional methods.
|
|
Received: 07 November 2017
|
|
|
|
[1] 王兰敬, 叶继元. 中文人文社会科学学术图书评价的瓶颈因素及对策研究[J]. 图书与情报, 2014(6): 82-87.
[2] Kousha K, Thelwall M.Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(3): 566-581.
[3] Zhou Q, Zhang C, Zhao S X, et al.Measuring book impact based on the multi-granularity online review mining[J]. Scientometrics, 2016, 107(3): 1-21.
[4] 何峻. 我国图书评价现状分析[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2012, 30(3): 106-110.
[5] 常韶伟. 对图书质量与经济效益关系的思考[J]. 编辑学刊, 2013(3): 102-104.
[6] 代根兴, 周晓燕. 出版社与图书馆图书评价标准比较研究[J]. 大学图书馆学报, 2013, 31(5): 36-40.
[7] 许庆瑞, 王勇, 陈劲. 绩效评价源与多源评价[J]. 科研管理, 2002, 23(3): 84-89.
[8] Garfield E.Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation[J]. Science, 1972, 178(4060): 471-479.
[9] 苏新宁. 我国人文社会科学图书被引概况分析——基于CSSCI数据库[J]. 东岳论丛, 2009(7): 5-13.
[10] Archambault É, VignolaGagné É, Côté G, et al. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases[J]. Scientometrics, 2006, 68(3): 329-342.
[11] Torres-Salinas D, Robinson-Garcia N, Campanario J M, et al.Coverage, field specialisation and the impact of scientific publishers indexed in the Book Citation Index[J]. Online Information Review, 2014, 38(1): 24-42.
[12] Kousha K, Thelwall M.Google book search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(8): 1537-1549.
[13] Bar-Ilan J.Citations to the “Introduction to informetrics” indexed by WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(3): 495-506.
[14] Kousha K, Thelwall M, Rezaie S.Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus[M]. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011.
[15] Gorraiz J, Gumpenberger C, Purnell P J.The power of book reviews: a simple and transparent enhancement approach for book citation indexes[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 98(2): 841-852.
[16] Zuccala A A, Verleysen F T, Cornacchia R, et al.Altmetrics for the humanities: Comparing Goodreads reader ratings with citations to history books[J]. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2015, 67(3): 320-336.
[17] Kousha K, Thelwall M. Alternative metrics for book impact assessment: Can Choice reviews be a useful source?[OL]. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c69a/38d1ac5bafd750a3f54411452e8ac6d5f79d.pdf.
[18] White H D, Boell S K, Yu H, et al.Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2009, 60(6): 1083-1096.
[19] Torres-Salinas D, Moed H F. Analysis is a useful tool in studies of social sciences and humanities[OL]. http://eprints.rclis.org/ 12375/.
[20] Torres-Salinas D, Robinson-Garcia N, López-Cózar E D. Towards a ‘Book Publishers Citation Reports’. First approach using the ‘Book Citation Index’[J]. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 2012, 35(4): 615-624.
[21] Giménez-Toledo E, Tejada-Artigas C, Mañana-Rodríguez J.Evaluation of scientific books’ publishers in social sciences and humanities: Results of a survey[J]. Research Evaluation, 2013, 22(1): 64-77.
[22] Kousha K, Thelwall M.Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(13): 2060-2069.
[23] 邱均平, 余厚强. 替代计量学的提出过程与研究进展[J]. 图书情报工作, 2013, 57(19): 5-12.
[24] 张云, 茆意宏. 社会化阅读平台的用户互动关系探析——以“豆瓣读书”用户行为为例[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2014, 37(12): 99-103.
[25] 黄熠, 王娟. PSO-GP中文文本情感分类方法研究[J]. 计算机科学, 2017, 44(s1): 446-450.
[26] 黄仁, 张卫. 基于word2vec的互联网商品评论情感倾向研究[J]. 计算机科学, 2016, 43(s1): 387-389.
[27] 周清清, 章成志. 在线用户评论细粒度属性抽取[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(5): 484-493.
[28] 章穗, 张梅, 迟国泰. 基于熵权法的科学技术评价模型及其实证研究[J]. 管理学报, 2010, 7(1): 34-42.
[29] 任静. 基于网络数据的学术图书评价研究[D]. 南京: 南京大学, 2013.
[30] 张玉, 潘云涛, 袁军鹏, 等. 论多维视角下中文科技图书学术影响力评价体系的构建[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(7): 69-76. |
|
|
|
