Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi

Kemal Yayla

doi:10.33721/by.1739618

TR EN

Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sosyal ve beşerî bilimlerde monografilerin akademik etkisinin değerlendirilmesi için geleneksel atıf indekslerinin kapsam sınırlılıkları ve altmetrik göstergelerin güvenilirlik sorunlarını aşan alternatif bir metodolojik çerçeve geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizini (KKA) sinyal teorisine entegre ederek ve Leinster-Cobbold biyoçeşitlilik ölçümlerini uyarlayarak genişleten İncelemeyle Geliştirilmiş Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizi (İG‑KKA) önerilmekte ve 2015-2024 yılları arasında Tarih Kritik Dergisi'nde incelenen 621 benzersiz başlık üzerinden ampirik olarak sınanmaktadır. Bu karma yöntemsel çerçeve, iki tamamlayıcı göstergeyi işlevsel hale getirmektedir: İşlevsel Çeşitlilik ve Hiyerarşik Çeşitlilik. Bulgular: İncelenen kitapların %96,6'sının ulusal toplu katalogda temsil edildiği ortaya konmuş, akademik incelemelerin kütüphane edinimleri için güçlü bir sinyal işlevi gördüğü görülmüştür. İki çeşitlilik ölçütüne dayalı stratejik diyagram, her kitabı dört etki profilinden birine sınıflandırmaktadır: Süperstarlar, Niş ve Disiplinlerarası Eserler, Yaygın Uzmanlaşma ve Yerel/Odaklı Başlıklar. Sonuç: İG‑KKA, odak noktasını "Kaç kütüphane bu kitabı barındırıyor?" sorusundan, "Hangi tür kütüphaneler ve ne kadar çeşitli bir dağılımda?" sorusuna kaydırarak, sosyal ve beşerî bilimler araştırmasının epistemik genişliğini daha doğru yansıtan, bağlama duyarlı, çok boyutlu ve mevcut göstergelerin sınırlılıklarını aşan bir değerlendirme perspektifi sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Monografi Değerlendirmesi, Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizi, Kitap İncelemeleri

Assessing the Impact of Monographs in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Review-Enhanced Framework for Library Catalog Analysis

Öz

Aim: This study aims to develop an alternative methodological framework that overcomes the coverage limitations of traditional citation indices and reliability issues of altmetric indicators for assessing the academic impact of monographs in social sciences and humanities. Method: Review-Enhanced Library Catalog Analysis (RE-LCA) is proposed and empirically tested. This hybrid approach builds on Library Catalog Analysis (LCA), enhancing it with signal theory and the adaptation of Leinster-Cobbold biodiversity metrics to operationalize two complementary indicators: Functional Diversity and Hierarchical Diversity. The model is tested through a case study of 621 unique titles reviewed in the Journal of History Critique from 2015 to 2024. Results: Results show that 96.6% of the reviewed titles are listed in the national union catalogue, confirming that scholarly reviews serve as a strong signal for acquisition. A strategic diagram, based on these two diversity measures, classifies each book into one of four impact profiles: Superstars, Niche & Interdisciplinary works, Widespread Specialization, and Local & Focused titles. These diversity metrics reveal nuanced diffusion patterns that raw holding counts overlook. Conclusion: By shifting the evaluation from "how many libraries hold a book?" to "which types of libraries, and how diversely?" RE-LCA offers a multidimensional, context-aware perspective that more effectively captures the broad epistemic reach of SSH scholarship and overcomes the limits of existing metrics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Monograph Evaluation, Library Catalog Analysis, Book Reviews

Kaynakça

Adams, T. R., & Barker, N. (1993). A new model for the study of the book. In N. Barker (Ed.), A potency of life: Books in society (pp. 5–43). British Library.
Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagné, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0115-z
Armstrong, C., & Lonsdale, R. (2005). Challenges in managing e-books collections in UK academic libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, 29(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2005.10766031
Biagetti, M. T., Iacono, A., & Trombone, A. (2018). Is the diffusion of books in library holdings a reliable indicator in research assessment? In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities (pp. 321–343). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_14
Brown, R. (2018). Reasons for publishing scholarly book reviews from a journal editor’s perspective. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 50(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.1.05
Broz, L., & Stöckelová, T. (2018). The culture of orphaned texts: Academic books in a performance-based evaluation system. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0063
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
Chi, P.-S. (2020). The field-specific citation and usage patterns of book literature in the book citation index. Research Evaluation, 29(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz037
Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1086/227835
Cordón-García, J.-A., Merchán-Sánchez-Jara, J., & Mangas-Vega, A. (2019). Evolution of the visibility of scholarly monographs in the academic field. El Profesional de la Información, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.09

Dagienė, E. (2023). Prestige of scholarly book publishers—An investigation into criteria, processes, and practices across countries. Research Evaluation, 32(2), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac044
Dagienė, E. (2024a). Mapping scholarly books: Library metadata and research assessment. Scientometrics, 129(9), 5689–5714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05120-1
Dagienė, E. (2024b). The challenge of assessing academic books: The U.K. and Lithuanian cases through the ISBN lens. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(1), 98–127. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00284
Demir, A. (2023). Türkiye’de akademik kitap yayımcılığı: Mevcut durum ve ihtiyaçlar. Eskiyeni, 50, 605–610. https://doi.org/10.37697/eskiyeni.1368946
Díaz-Faes, A. A., Bordons, M., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2016). Integrating metrics to measure research performance in social sciences and humanities: The case of the Spanish CSIC. Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw018
Engels, T. C. E., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127
Engels, T. C. E., Ossenblok, T. L. B., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics, 93(2), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2
Finkelstein, D., & McCleery, A. (2013). An introduction to book history (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Gingras, Y., & Khelfaoui, M. (2019). Do we need a book citation index for research evaluation? Research Evaluation, 28(4), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz024
Glänzel, W., Thijs, B., & Chi, P.-S. (2016). The challenges to expand bibliometric studies from periodical literature to monographic literature with a new data source: The book citation index. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2165–2179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2046-7
Gorraiz, J., Purnell, P. J., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Opportunities for and limitations of the book citation index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1388–1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22875
Hicks, D. (1999). The difficulty of achieving full coverage of international social science literature and the bibliometric consequences. Scientometrics, 44(2), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457380
Huang, M., & Chang, Y. (2008). Characteristics of research output in social sciences and humanities: From a research evaluation perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1819–1828. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20885
James, S. (2011). Flogging a dead book? Prospects for the scholarly book and the university press in Australia. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42(2), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.42.2.182
Johnson, M. J. (2019). What is a book? Redefining the book in the digitally social age. Publishing Research Quarterly, 35(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-018-9622-z
Joseph, R. P. (2015). Higher education book publishing—From print to digital: A review of the literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 31(4), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-015-9429-0
Klamer, A., & van Dalen, H. P. (2002). Attention and the art of scientific publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9(3), 289–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178022000015104
Kovač, M., Phillips, A., van der Weel, A., & Wischenbart, R. (2019). What is a book? Publishing Research Quarterly, 35(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09665-5
Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Nowotniak, R., Petr, M., Sivertsen, G., Istenič Starčič, A., & Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0
Leinster, T., & Cobbold, C. A. (2012). Measuring diversity: The importance of species similarity. Ecology, 93(3), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2402.1
Linmans, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link: Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0088-9
Maleki, A. (2022). Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment? Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings. Scientometrics, 127(2), 1129–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04239-9
Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797
Nan, X., Li, M., & Shi, J. (2020). Using altmetrics for assessing impact of highly-cited books in Chinese book citation index. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1651–1669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03347-2
Nederhof, A. J. (1989). Books and chapters are not to be neglected in measuring research productivity. American Psychologist, 44(4), 734–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.734
Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and the humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2
Oudenaar, H., & Bullard, J. (2023). NOT A BOOK: Goodreads and the risks of social cataloging with insufficient direction. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 61(2), 203–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2023.2207189
Sivertsen, G. (2019). Understanding and evaluating research and scholarly publishing in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). Data and Information Management, 3(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.2478/dim-2019-0008
Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Taylor, M. (2020). An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2523–2543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03735-8
Thelwall, M., & Delgado, M. M. (2015). Arts and humanities research evaluation: No metrics please, just data. Journal of Documentation, 71(4), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2015-0028
Torres-Salinas, D., & Arroyo-Machado, W. (2020). Library catalog analysis and library holdings counts: Origins, methodological issues and application to the field of informetrics. In C. Daraio & W. Glänzel (Eds.), Evaluative informetrics: The art of metrics-based research assessment (pp. 287–308). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47665-6_13
Torres-Salinas, D., Gorraiz, J., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2018). The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-06-2018-0152
Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Library catalog analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in economics. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.10.002
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2005). Signals in science—On the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics, 64(2), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0248-5
Vandewalle, E., Guns, R., & Engels, T. C. E. (2024). Local impact of books: A comparison of libcitations from research-oriented and public libraries. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(9), 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24937
Vassiliou, M., & Rowley, J. (2008). Progressing the definition of “e-book”. Library Hi Tech, 26(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830810903292
Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2013). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 428–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22836
Wei, M., & Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2020). Evaluating the relationship between the academic and social impact of open access books based on citation behaviors and social media attention. Scientometrics, 125(3), 2401–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03678-0
White, H. D., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083–1096. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21045
White, H. D., & Zuccala, A. A. (2018). Libcitations, WorldCat, cultural impact, and fame. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(12), 1502–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24064
Yang, S., Xing, X., Qi, F., & Grácio, M. C. C. (2021). Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: An analysis of citations and altmetric indicators. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1101–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03808-8
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Zhou, Q. (2022). Assessing books’ academic impacts via integrated computation of multi-level citation information. The Electronic Library, 40(4), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-03-2022-0060

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Türkçe

Konular

İnformetrik, Kayıt Tutma Bilişimi, Kütüphane ve Bilgi Çalışmaları (Diğer)

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Kemal Yayla ^*
0000-0001-9064-611X
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Haziran 2026

Gönderilme Tarihi

10 Temmuz 2025

Kabul Tarihi

17 Nisan 2026

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2026 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1739618

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA38JL43BL

APA

Yayla, K. (2026). Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi. Bilgi Yönetimi, 9(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1739618

AMA

1.Yayla K. Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi. BY. 2026;9(1):36-54. doi:10.33721/by.1739618

Chicago

Yayla, Kemal. 2026. “Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi”. Bilgi Yönetimi 9 (1): 36-54. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1739618.

EndNote

Yayla K (01 Haziran 2026) Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi. Bilgi Yönetimi 9 1 36–54.

IEEE

[1]K. Yayla, “Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi”, BY, c. 9, sy 1, ss. 36–54, Haz. 2026, doi: 10.33721/by.1739618.

ISNAD

Yayla, Kemal. “Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi”. Bilgi Yönetimi 9/1 (01 Haziran 2026): 36-54. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.1739618.

JAMA

1.Yayla K. Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi. BY. 2026;9:36–54.

MLA

Yayla, Kemal. “Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi”. Bilgi Yönetimi, c. 9, sy 1, Haziran 2026, ss. 36-54, doi:10.33721/by.1739618.

Vancouver

1.Kemal Yayla. Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi. BY. 01 Haziran 2026;9(1):36-54. doi:10.33721/by.1739618

Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimlerde Monografi Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kütüphane Kataloğu Analizinin İncelemelerle Geliştirilmiş Bir Çerçevesi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Assessing the Impact of Monographs in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Review-Enhanced Framework for Library Catalog Analysis

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster