As a unique type of scientific production, the assessment of scholarly book has been recently revalued under the trending Chinese technology policy. This article performs a survey of different attempts applied to various assessment problems for scholarly book, such as comprehensive assessment framework, the localization of international impact measurements the improvement measures, and the theorical recognition from different angles. The paper analyzes the questions of what, who, and how to reach an eventual integration with scholarly book assessment platforms. The conclusions indicate that the exquisite categorization and the negotiated criteria framework are firstly needed to be studied in order to initiate an assessment project of scholarly book in China.

1. Glänzel W, Schoepflin U. A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Inf Process Manag. 1999;35(1):31–44.    DOI: 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4

2. Summerfield M, Mandel C, Kantor P. Perspectives on scholarly online books. J Libr Adm. 2001;35(1/2):61–82.    DOI: 10.1300/J111v35n01_05

3. Engels TCE, Istenič Starčič A, Kulczycki E, Pölönen J, Sivertsen G. Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib J Inf Manag. 2018;70(6):592–607.    DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127

4. Toledo EG. Why books are important in the scholarly communication system in social sciences and humanities. Sch Assess Rep. 2020;2(1):6.    DOI: 10.29024/sar.14

5. 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):201–213.    DOI: 10.3152/095820209X471986

6. Wang J, Halffman W, Zwart H. The Chinese scientific publication system: specific features, specific challenges. Learn Publ. 2021;34(2):105–115.    DOI: 10.1002/leap.1326

7. Regulations on Publication Administration. Updated August 23, 2014. Accessed October 15, 2023. https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/laws_regulations/2014/08/23/content_281474983043721.htm

8. Ren SL, Cheng WH, Liu XM, Yan J, Liu PY, Liu J. [Thoughts on speeding up the development of China's high-quality journals]. Bulletin Natl Nat Sci Found China. 2018;32(6):645–651.

9. Ye JY. [A study on the concepts of academic book, academic writing and academic monograph]. Journal of Library Science in China. 2016;42(1):21–29.

10. Zhu SQ, Qiu Y, Chen H Y. [Research on the adaptability of Chinese book comprehensive evaluation system incorporated with review indicators]. Libr Inf Serv. 2021;65(9):23–31.    DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.09.003

11. Qiu Y, Zhu SQ, Fan DD. [Research on the construction of quality evaluation system of Chinese books based on multi-dimensional index fusion]. Libr J. 2021;40(3):109–115.

12. Lin XH. [Study on academic impact evaluation of Chinese books under web2.0 multiple dimensions: case study of computer books]. New Century Libr. 2018;(1):22–25+34.

13. Zhang Y, Pan YT, Yuan JP, et al. [The construction of academic impact evaluation system of Sci-Tech books in China under multiple dimensions]. Libr Inf Serv. 2015;59(7):69–76.    DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2015.07.009

14. Lei SY, Lv XJ. [Study on the impact evaluation of academic books from an Altmetrics perspective]. J Southwest Minzu Univ. 2017;38(6):225–231.

15. Tang JR, Ye Y. [A comparative study of academic trace and impact torque on single publication]. J Libr Sci China. 2015;41(2):4–16.

16. Yang CH, Chen R. [An empirical study on the quantitative evaluation of the academic impact of biomedical publications]. Sci-Tech Publ. 2013;(11):125–128.

17. Li M, Chen M. [Stratified framework of academic books Altmetrics evaluation indicators]. J Mod Inf. 2018;38(5):106–109.

18. Jiang CL, Guo QQ, Zhang GY. [Bookmetrix-based Discipline Characteristics analysis of the academic book assessment indexes]. J Intel. 2020;39(8):193–202.    DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1965.2020.08.029

19. Xing X. [A comparative study of the academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective]. Wuhan: Wuhan University. 2020. (Thesis)

20. Liu CL. [Scientometrics in the Web 2.0 Environment: Altmetrics]. Libr Inf Serv. 2012;56(14):52–56+92.

21. Qiu JP, Yu HQ. [Some Basic Problems in Advancing the Development of Altmetrics]. J Libr Sci China. 2015;41(1):4–15.

22. Yao L, Chen ZQ. [Study on the influence evaluation system of National Library of philosophy and Social Sciences]. J Southwest Minzu Univ. 2016;37(6): 232–236.

23. Ren J. [The evaluation of academic book based on web data]. Nanjing: Nanjing University. 2015. (Thesis)

24. Hu HL. [Research on academic works' credibility evaluation]. Wuhan: Wuhan University. 2013. (Thesis)

25. Zhang ZQ, Yin ZK. [Evaluation of Chinese academic books: major problems, strategic scrutiny, and issue consensus]. Mod Publ. 2020;(4):16–22.

26. Wang WJ. [Chinese academic book evaluation system in the new era: methodology and practice]. Mod Publ. 2020;(2):39–44+38.

27. Wei QX. [Research on the implementation mechanism and construction of the influence evaluation index system of the academic monograph of humanities and social science]. Dalian: Dalian University of Technology. 2018. (Thesis)

28. Xu LP, Niu MW. [Current situation and thoughts on Chinese academic books going global under the perspective of scientific evaluation]. China Publ J. 2021;(5):60–64.

29. Zhang YL, Cai JH. [Empirical research on academic books evaluation—Evaluating the content of leather books with applied research results as an example]. View Publ. 2016;(14):36–38.

30. Hao YL, Feng B. [Research on the construction of evaluation mechanism of domestic science and technology books]. Sci-Tech Publ. 2015;(2):81–83.

31. Wang KQ. [A brief discussion on book evaluation standards with Chinese characteristics—Analyzing the development trend of book evaluation standards from single-level to multi-level from the perspective of convergence of natural sciences and social sciences]. Documentation, Inf Knowledge. 1988;(1):63–67+50.    DOI: 10.13366/j.dik.1988.01.028

32. Nederhof AJ. Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: a Review. Scientometrics. 2006;66(1):81–100.    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0007-2

33. Yuan XL, Shen C. [Comparative study on peer review and bibliometric analysis used for monographs evaluation in the area of humanities and social sciences]. Libr Inf. 2020;(05):24–30.

34. Ge J, Xue MY, Yang SC. [A preliminary study of evaluation methods for scientific and technical publications]. Ke-ji Chengguo Zongheng. 1999;(1):9–11.

35. Jin YC. [The academic evaluation function and enhancement path of academic editors]. Publ Res. 2017;(11):56–59.

36. Tian WP. [Professional editor positioning in academic evaluation]. Hebei Acad J. 2023;43(4):9–14.

37. Zeng Q, Liu J, Liu M. [Research on academic evaluation of books from a user perspective]. Shipbuild Vocat Educ. 2023;11(6): 73–76.

38. Dai GX, Zhou XY. [The Comparative Research on book evaluation standards in library and in press]. J Acad Libr. 2013;31(5):36–40.

39. Sun SY. [An overview of the evaluation of scholarly publishing organizations in China]. Publ Res. 2016;(7):31–34.

40. Zhang J. [Book evaluation should not follow the rut of "review articles by periodicals"]. Update March 25, 2015. Accessed October 15, 2023. https://news.sufe.edu.cn/43/b5/c186a17333/page.htm

41. Wang WJ. [The double variation of academic and market: academic book publishing in the process of building socialist market economy]. Southeast Acad Res. 2022;(04): 237–245.

42. Li XX. [Overview of book evaluation index system and methods]. Comput Knowl Technol. 2020;16(23):23–26.