Microsoft academic search and google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1149-1156

  Ortega, José Luis ^a   Aguillo, Isidro F ^b  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

^b INSTITUTO DE HISTORIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC SEARCH; AUTHOR PROFILES; CITATION INDEX; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; COMPUTING SCIENCE; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; MICROSOFT; PERSONAL PROFILE;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 84901503287     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23036     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aguillo, I.F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351.
2. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus andWeb of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(7). Retrieved from http://www.bio-diglib.com/ content/3/1/7
3. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Peters, I., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2012). Beyond citations: Scholars' visibility on the social web. 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (p. 14). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.
4. Delgado López-Cozar, E., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2012). Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. EC3 Working Papers 6.
5. Fenner, M. (2011). Google Scholar Citations, researcher profiles, and why we need an open bvibliography. PLoS Blogs. Retrieved from http:// blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2011/07/27/google-scholar-citations-researcher-profiles- and-why-we-need-an-open-bibliography
6. Google Scholar blog. (2011a). Google Scholar Citations. Retrieved from http://googlescholar.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-scholar-citations.html
7. Google Scholar blog. (2011b). Google Scholar Citations open to all. Retrieved from http://googlescholar.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-scholar- citations-open-to-all.html
8. Harvard University. (2012). Harvard at a glance. Retrieved from http:// www.harvard.edu/harvard-glance
9. Harzing, A.W.K.b & Van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61-73.
10. Hood, W.W., & Wilson, C.S. (2003). Overlap in bibliographic databases. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(12), 1091-1103.
11. Huang, Z., & Yuan, B. (2012). Mining Google Scholar Citations: An exploratory study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7389/2012, 182-189.
12. Jacsó, P. (2008). Google Scholar revisited. Online Information Review, 32(1), 102-114. (Pubitemid 351332195)
13. Jacsó, P. (2010). Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 34(1), 175-191.
14. Jacsó, P. (2011). The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective. Online Information Review, 35(6), 983-997.
15. Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: Is it too little, too late? Online Information Review, 36(1), 126-141.
16. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007). Google Scholar Citations and Google web-URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055-1065. (Pubitemid 46826219)
17. Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125. (Pubitemid 350229712)
18. Microsoft. (2011). Academic categories in Microsoft Academic Search. Retrieved from http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/mas/thread/ bf20d54a-ede2-48a9-8bbb-f6c1c1f30429
19. Microsoft. (2012). Microsoft Academic Search data coverage. Retrieved from http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/mas/thread/7ed5d49d-65b7-4a2f- 9adf-4de9e23ee70e
20. Ortega, J.L., & Aguillo, I.F. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google Scholar Citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2370-2377.
21. Ortega, J.L., & Aguillo, I.F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403.
22. Priem, J., Piwowar, H., & Hemminger, B. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. In Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research, New Orleans, LA.
23. Scopus. (2008). Subject Area Categories. Retrieved from http://help.scopus.com/robo/projects/schelp/h-subject-categories.htm
24. Scopus. (2013). Scopus-SciVerse. Retrieved from http://www.info.sciverse. com/scopus
25. Thomson Reuters. (2012). Web of Science: Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/pdf/Web-of-Science-factsheet.pdf
26. Waldrop, M.M. (2008). Science 2.0. Scientific American, 298, 68-73.
27. Wikipedia. (2013). Microsoft Academic Search. Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft-Academic-Search
28. Zhang, S. (2011). Hirsch index and a co-authorship network. Retrieved from http://scenic.princeton.edu/network20q/blog/?p=583