Amir - it really depends on a number of factors. The work that is involved in writing a good text (whether solo author, co-author or edited) is resource-intensive. I personally, from my experience, would argue that a single chapter in a book is roughly equivalent to an article. They are 'often' about the same word restriction i.e. 5,000 words per chapter/article. I've written for some of the larger book publishing houses i.e. Elsevier, CUP, OUP, Palgrave Macmillan etc. That said, it depends if the article is primary, empirical research or something different i.e. an integrative review as well.

Amir - it really depends on a number of factors. The work that is involved in writing a good text (whether solo author, co-author or edited) is resource-intensive. I personally, from my experience, would argue that a single chapter in a book is roughly equivalent to an article. They are 'often' about the same word restriction i.e. 5,000 words per chapter/article. I've written for some of the larger book publishing houses i.e. Elsevier, CUP, OUP, Palgrave Macmillan etc. That said, it depends if the article is primary, empirical research or something different i.e. an integrative review as well.

Thank you for your insightful answer and I agree about book co-authors but it also applies to journal articles. Books are reviewed just like articles and some publisher are even more strict in their evaluation of manuscripts than journal boards. I am curious if your institution has an established range for equating textbooks with a specific number of journal articles?

I think it would be rare to find institutions that have exact formulas and counting rules such as you suggest. For example, suppose the textbook is single authored with a highly prestigious publisher, how would you equate that to co-authored articles in second-tier journals, versus solo-authored articles in top-ranked journals, etc. etc.

There are just too many variables involved to generate simple equation.

But i ma still asking if your institution will consider conference papers in assessing faculty scholarship by taking the many factors you suggest?

The usual path to publication often begins with a conference paper, but a conference paper that remains unpublished will not receive much credit. So, a newly hired scholar who who is presenting at conferences is doing what would be expected of them, but if those presentations did not turn into peer-reviewed publications, then they would not count for much in the long run.

My University consider a quality texbook published through a quality publisher to be equivalent to 5 journal articles. However, in calculating points for promotion, only one book is considered even if the candidate has more than one book, while Journal articles have no limits when it comes to calculation of points. As such most Scholars here exert more of their energy in journal publication. I however found it worth while to have a book pubished even though it took two years from manuscript preparation, review and publication.

Dear David- thank you for the explanation. It is very helpful.

Dear Isa - thank you for your response. It is a very interest approach that provides needed flexibility for scholars to pursue their passions and getting rewarded for it. Amir

Absolutely, a quality textbook with a quality publisher is equivalent to a set of journal articles. When I taught at James Madison University, they would count a textbook as having the same value as three peer-reviewed articles.

Kirk- Thank you for sharing your insights. It confirms what the range I cited in my question (3 to 6 journal). Amir

Thanks Mutasem. Amir

Hi all,

A good thread. Personally, I've never come across a formulae (as David suggests) of an exact measure. My experience is usually that their is a 'ranking scale' i.e. a journal article is A, a book is B, a book chapter is C. As already highlighted though - there are many variable s and perhaps we should question that with our institutions?

I believe a quality book with great circulation provide the scholar with amazing opportunities to connect internationally more than any one Journal article possibly could. I think of Newton’s book!

NO

No! to what? Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Issac Newton made enormous contributions. I can name many other books that contributed to science, philosophy, arts, psychology, etc. so I say YES!

I fully endorse the views of Mr.Dean Whitehead. Publisher has nothing to do with the quality of written material. Irrespective of the publisher, if quality of writing or content is excellent , the book will surely reach masses of readers. Publishers will get huge money which is justifiable , because, they would have made initial investment to bring out the Book to the fore in a neat format reposing a great faith on the author .

Amir, I agree with you that books connect more with people than journal articles. I remember as a PhD student once I find any subject difficult to understand, I most of the time got my solution from reading of a book in that subject area. Books are more down to Earth than journal articles

I think quality book is more important than paper because you can find all the content in single platform instead of referring many papers.

Both have different application. Book daels with topic in detail and research paper presents novel aspects related to topic.Also, it depends upon end user, his requirent.

I'd really prefer quality book with several important contents than papers.

Of course - what we are highlighting here is it's back to the original debate - that there is no exact formulae.

I have been fortunate to publish a number of books on the subject of pubic health and health promotion. Books do not receive as many citations because the readers can identify the original source from the reference list and use these. Therefore how do we estimate the quality of a book in terms of academic performance?----- Number of books sold? Number of books as essential reading on university courses? Any ideas?

Great question. If the book offers a ground breaking ideas, then users can not depend solely on the reference list. There are some classic books in various fields that are still being produced.

I agree with you regarding citations! For example, if you publish a book at a university in China on Geotechnical Engineering, you will have thousands of citations and if a similar book is published in the USA you may get hundreds! Finally, if you publish a book in a highly complex area you may get a few citations and if you publish a simple book you may get thousands. I have no good answer for you.

I believe they are not the same. The intellectual processes involved in producing a journal article differ from a book irrespective of the publisher. A journal Article defines research, thus, establishing a question, collecting data, analyzing the data and finally interpreting the results. Usually book writing may not go through this processes. Ideas in a book may solely be the opinion of the author. I recently read a book and to my amazement the author did not even referenced one person (some may claim he is an authority in the field) which I strongly believe does not make it scientific. Hence, I believe journal articles can not be placed on the same pedestal with books.

Thank you Harry.

As with many of these kinds of questions, the can be no set answer since the definition of "quality" is not clear.

That being said, my university does not explicitly give a set value. The written phrasing that I see from my department is 1-to-1 but in practice, the ratio may be more like 3-to-1.

I wholeheartedly agree with some of the responses: a well-written book is an outstanding resource for clearly presented and well-organized information. It is the clear presentation and well thought out organization that set quality books apart from papers, particularly since many obscure papers can be hard to procure.

The added question of citations is intriguing. I feel that "the" reference book for an area would (or at least should) get more citations than the original sources through lines in papers like "we refer the reader to [1] for an overview of the area." I often include such a line in my papers for books or surveys to give credit to my own source of information. Is this not common in other disciplines?

Harry also raised a good point that the intellectual process is different from writing papers. Here I've been assuming that we've been discussing research-level book as opposed to something like college algebra (a worthy exercise in itself). I personally feel a research-level book (in mathematics) is, at least in some sense, a glorified survey paper. The organization is critical but the inclusion of proofs, general strategies, and broad insights sets the book on another level.

What a wonderful and important area of scientific enlightenment. Thank you.

I have a question under this. Does writing a textbook we are here reffering to actually has any relationship with content and volume before such equivalent number of article is judged, regardless of each institution formula?