Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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 A merican H istorical R eview 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.
Zuccala et al. (Thu,) studied this question.