I do not think that a book chapter receives, academically, more points (it is not considered a better product), but from my experience, it is cited more since books on Google Scholar have usually more citations than papers. Eventually, adding these citations to the total number of citations improves the academic position of the faculty member. So, actually, indirectly, a book chapter helps gain more credit in a curriculum vitae.
Assuming we talk about non-predatory publishing venues. This very much would depend on an institution's policy regarding academic publishing, and also on sensibilities in each academic field.
Some universities value journal articles, especially those published in ISI- A&HCI- & SCOPUS-indexed journals. Others give same weightage to book chapters as to journal articles, if the former are indexed in these databases.
In some disciplines (e.g., history) academics tend to put a high premium on books rather than on journals.
In short, there are many considerations and subtleties.
Yes, I agree with Larisa that the answer really depends on the policies of your institution. Some may not even have a formal hierarchy, so the value of a publication may be more subjective.
I am interested in this question. My university put similar scores on both. I'm quite curious about the difference between ISSN and ISBN referring to the Dibakar Pal. Personally books are more prestigious in creating a good profile.
At our university, a book chapter counts the same for tenure as a peer reviewed article. Avishag is right however, in that in the long run the book chapter is probably going to get more citations if for no other reason that it will have a larger dissemination in libraries and in the classroom.
Hi All, i do agree that academically, at least in my area (CompSc, IT, InfSys) AND in New Zealand universities, book chapters do not count for much-mostly because they are often repeat publications of articles already published. However, book chapters do add to the CV in general. Regarding citations, i doubt it very much that a book chapter will get you more more. For example, if i find something of interest in an electronically published book, i will look for related journal article and more, and normally cite these rather then the book. In other words , i may use the book as a starting point for a deeper search rather than as a knowledge source. There are exceptions, of course.
I think that besides the rules of the institution, it really depends on the type of the research. If there is large research work done by different researchers or research teams, it is really worth to present such research in a book. However just publishing a chapter which only formally is related to other chapters in a book is really not better option that publishing in good peer reviewed journal, because of peer review quality. However in life could happen situations when you need to publish your work at least as a book chapter if by some reasons you cannot do that with good journal. Of course even in such case predatory publishers like Lambert should never be chosen. More or less representative list of good book publishers is presented by SENSE. Publishers of all categories mentioned by them (even in E) are not bad.
Books and therefore book chapters last longer. The book will be in the university library for decades. Some professors will not allow students to use resources such as journal articles that are more than 5 years old, but do not place the same restriction on books. I have written both. At my university both count for promotion and tenure.