Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Desirable Features and Weaknesses of Iranian Academic Textbooks Publishing in Social Science Fields

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

The present study investigates the Iranian faculties’ attitude toward knowing the desirable features and weaknesses of academic textbooks. The survey research method was used and the data were collected by a semi-structured interview. The population consisted of Iranian faculties in the fields of management, geography, sports science and economics, and maximum variation sampling was used as a sampling method. Findings showed that when choosing academic books, faculties pay attention to several aspects including the use of a book, book credits, those materials added to the original text such as a table, diagram, figure, original content issues, book content, book appearance, and its distribution. The weaknesses presented by faculties can be divided into two parts: the weaknesses of compiled books and the weaknesses of translated books, which are related to publishers and authors. Besides, other weaknesses are lack of expert authors, the non-strength of book physical structure, inappropriate layouts, non-fluency, and literal translation. This is the first study to analyze the desirable and weakness point of Iranian academic book publishing and attempt to show selection criteria of academic book publishing as there is no evaluation systems of academic books in Iran.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonaccorsi A. Towards an epistemic approach to evaluation in SSH, in Bonaccorsi. In: Bonaccorsi A, editor. The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: lessons from the Italian experience. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Cronin B. Scholarly communication and epistemic cultures. New Rev Acad Librariansh. 2003;9(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614530410001692004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Verleysen FT, Ossenblok TLB. Profiles of monograph authors in the social sciences and humanities: an analysis of productivity, career stage, co-authorship, disciplinary affiliation and gender, based on a regional bibliographic database. Scientometrics. 2017;111(3):1673–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-017-2312-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sivertsen G. Patterns of internationalization and criteria for research assessment in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics. 2016;107(2):357–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Engels TCE, Ossenblok TLB, Spruyt EHJ. Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics. 2012;93(2):373–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Giménez-Toledo E, Román-Román A. Assessment of humanities and social sciences monographs through their publishers: a review and a study towards a model of evaluation. Res Eval. 2009;18(3):201–13. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820209X471986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C, Fantoni S, Folli V, Leonetti M, Ruocco G. Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences? Scientometrics. 2017;112(1):607–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2384-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zuccala A, Cornacchia R. Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics. 2016;108(1):465–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1911-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mannana-Rodriguez J, Giménez-Toledo E. Specialization and multidisciplinary of scholarly book publishers: differences between Spanish University presses and other scholarly publishers. Scientometrics. 2018;114(1):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2563-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Basili C, Lanzillo L. Research quality criteria in the evaluation of books. In: Bonaccorsi A, editor. The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 159–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Zuccala A, Guns R, Cornacchia R, Bod R. Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(7):1333–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kulczycki E. The diversity of monographs: changing landscape of book evaluation in Poland. Aslib J Inf Manag. 2018;70(6):608–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Amalia M, Thelwall M. Do prestigious Spanish scholarly book publishers have more teaching impact? Aslib J Inf Manag. 2018;70(6):673–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-04-2018-0094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Torres-Salinas D, Robinson-García N, Jiménez-Contreras E, Delgado López-Cózar E. Towards a ‘book publishers citation reports’ First approach using the ‘book citation index. Rev Esp Doc Cient. 2012;35(4):615–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gorraiz J, Purnell P, Glänzel W. Opportunities and limitations of the book citation index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013;64(7):1388–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Peruginelli G, Faro S, Agnoloni T. A survey on legal research monograph evaluation in Italy. In: Bonaccorsi A, editor. The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: lessons from the Italian experience. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 211–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0_9.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Cronin B, Barre KL. Mickey mouse and Milton: book publishing in the humanities. Learn Publish. 2004;17(2):85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guns R. Concentration of academic book publishers. In: STI 2018 conference proceedings: Leiden; 2018. p. 518–525. https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/65268.

  19. Williams P, Stevenson I, Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Rowlands I. The role and future of the monograph in arts & humanities research. ASLIB Proc. 2009;61(1):67–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Puuska H-M. Scholarly publishing patterns in Finland: a comparison of disciplinary groups. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, Tampere; 2014.

  21. Gimenez-Toledo E, Manana-Rodriguez J, Engels TCE, Guns R, Kulczycki E, Ochsner M, Pölönen J, Sivertsen G, Zuccala AA. Taking scholarly books into account, part II: a comparison of 19 European countries in evaluation and funding. Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):233–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Giménez-Toledo E, Mañana-Rodríguez J, Engels TCE, Ingwersen P, Siverten G, Verleysen FT, Zuccala AA. Taking scholarly books into account: current developments in five European countries. Scientometrics. 2016;107(2):685–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghufron Mukti A, Saleh M. Evaluating academic writing textbook: teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Arab World Engl J. 2016;7(1):326–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Azarmi M. Priority of personalization look and feel and audiovisual capability criteria of ebook production in Iran: electronic publishers’ attitude. Thesis, Emam Raza University, Mashhad; 2013.

  25. Kiyani M, Rastegarpour H, Sharif SM. Role of graphic on drawing and preparing academic textbook. Res Writ Acad Books. 2011;21(16):46–66.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hui-Min K. Surveying faculty book selection in a comprehensive university library. Collect Build. 2000;19(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950010371364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Neuendorf K. Content analysis and thematic analysis. In: Brough P, editor. Research methods for applied psychologists: design, analysis and reporting. New York: Routledge; 2019. p. 211–23.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Graves K, Xu S. Designing language course, a guide for teachers. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jamali-Zavareh B, Nasr A, Armand M, Nili M. Explaining the content criteria of writing and editing academic textbooks in training science, counseling and psychology. Res Writ Acad Books. 2009;21:31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chambliss JM, Calfee CR. Textbooks for learning: nurturing children’s minds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Education for change LTD. A strategy and vision for the future for electronic textbooks in UK further and higher education. London: The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) E-Books Working Group; 2003. p. 1–91.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Eisner E. The educational imagination: on the design and evaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Amerian MJ, Khaivar A. Textbook selection, evaluation and adaption procedures. Int J Lang Learn Appl Linguist World. 2014;6(1):523–33.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Clark ML. Electronic books and the humanities: a survey at the University of Denver. Collect Build. 2007;26(1):7–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/01604950710721548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Knowledge Studies, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Sepideh Fahimifar & Mohammad Reza Vasfi

  2. Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Hamadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, Iran

    Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam

Authors
  1. Sepideh Fahimifar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Isfandyari-Moghaddam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Reza Vasfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sepideh Fahimifar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fahimifar, S., Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. & Vasfi, M.R. The Desirable Features and Weaknesses of Iranian Academic Textbooks Publishing in Social Science Fields. Pub Res Q 36, 102–115 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09701-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09701-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation