AIMS — The aims were: to investigate the citation-patterns of monograph books in taxonomic botany (looking mainly at publications and publishers, and the age of current literature); to provide information for collections management and reference services in libraries that hold botany materials. METHOD — 454 citations were collected from 47 botanical monographs; Impact Factors of journals based on these citations were calculated and compared with conventional Impact Factors from ISI Web of Science; age-distributions of citations were drawn up; other analyses were also carried out. RESULTS — A small Bradfordian core of highly-cited journals was established; monograph Impact Factors were not useable; the important publishers of monograph books were identified; monographs were more often cited than journal articles; older materials were more important than in other sciences; monographs were used by botanists for current awareness purposes; coverage of botanical journals by citation indexes was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS — Librarians should: note the core botanical journals identified here; note the importance of British journals to British botanists; continue to acquire botanical monographs and to retain older materials; display new botanical monographs prominently and include them in current awareness services. PROBLEMS — The small size of the sample means that results were merely indicative. Further studies should: take larger samples; look at citations in journal articles, theses, conference proceedings, etc.; look at citations made over several years. ORIGINALITY — The bibliometrics of taxonomic botany have previously been little studied; likewise citations from monographs. Some of the bibliometric methods of J. M. Cullars were applied to botanical literature.
A Master's Dissertation, submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Arts degree of Loughborough University.