The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university

Scientometrics

Volumn 113, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 1551-1571

  Hug, Sven E ^a,b   Brändle, Martin P ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Citation analysis; Coverage; EPrints; Microsoft Academic; Publication language; Research fields; Scopus; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85030326583     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bertin, M. (2008). Categorizations and annotations of citation in research evaluation. In D.C. Wilson, & H.C. Lane (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference (pp. 456–461). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.
2. Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Sugimoto, C. R., & Lariviere, V. (2016). The linguistic patterns and rhetorical structure of citation context: an approach using n-grams. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1417–1434. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2134-8.
3. Bosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E., & Verhoeff, H. (2006). Scopus reviewed and compared: The coverage and functionality of the citation database Scopus, including comparisons with Web of Science and Google Scholar. Netherlands: Utrecht University Library.
4. Clarivate. (2017). Web of science core collection. Retrieved from http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/.
5. Currano, J. L., & Roth, D. L. (Eds.). (2014). Chemical information for chemists. A primer. Cambridge: RSC Publishing.
6. De Domenico, M., Omodei, E., & Arenas, A. (2016). Quantifying the diaspora of knowledge in the last century. Applied Network Science, 1(15), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s41109-016-0017-9.
7. Effendy, S., & Yap, R. H. (2016). Investigations on rating computer sciences conferences: An experiment with the Microsoft Academic Graph dataset. In J. Bourdeau, J. A. Hendler, & R. Nkambou Nkambou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web (pp. 425–430). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. doi:10.1145/2872518.2890525.
8. Effendy, S., & Yap, R. H. (2017). Analysing trends in computer science research: A preliminary study using the Microsoft Academic Graph. In R. Barret, & R. Cummings (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th international conference companion on world wide web (pp. 1245–1250). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. doi:10.1145/3041021.3053064.
9. Elsevier. (2017). Scopus content coverage guide January 2016. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/scopus_content_coverage_guide.pdf.
10. Fagan, J. C. (2017). An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014–2016: Implications for librarians’ practice and research agenda. Information Technology and Libraries, 36(2), 7–47. doi:10.6017/ital.v36i2.9718.
11. Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurian, J. C. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008.
12. Gumpenberger, C., Sorz, J., Wieland, M., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). Humanities and social sciences in the bibliometric spotlight—Research output analysis at the University of Vienna and considerations for increasing visibility. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 271–278. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw013.
13. Harzing, A.-W. (2016). Microsoft Academic (Search): A Phoenix arisen from the ashes? Scientometrics, 108(3), 1637–1647. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2026-y.
14. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017a). Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics, 110(1), 371–383. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2185-x.
15. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017b). Microsoft Academic is one year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3.
16. Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016a). An analysis of the Microsoft Academic Graph. D-Lib Magazine. doi:10.1045/september2016-herrmannova.
17. Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016b). Semantometrics: Towards fulltext-based research evaluation. In N.R. Adam, B. Cassel, & Y. Yesha (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 235–236). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2910896.2925448.
18. Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). Microsoft Academic is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower. LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/06/19/microsoft-academic-is-on-the-verge-of-becoming-a-bibliometric-superpower/.
19. Hug, S. E., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). Citation analysis with Microsoft Academic. Scientometrics, 111(1), 371–378. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8.
20. Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010). The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84(3), 575–603. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z.
21. Luo, D., Gong, C., Hu, R., Duan, L. (2016). Ensemble enabled weighted PageRank. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.05462v1.
22. Main Library of the University of Zurich. (2017). Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/working-with-zora/regulations.
23. Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Mas-Bleda, A., & Thelwall, M. (2016). Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2007–2030. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2118-8.
25. Medo, M., & Cimini, G. (2016). Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators. Physical Review E, 94(3), 032312. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.94.032312.
26. Microsoft. (2017a). Microsoft Academic Graph. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/microsoft-academic-graph/.
27. Microsoft. (2017b). Microsoft Academic. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/academic/.
28. Microsoft. (2017c). Microsoft Academic. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://academic.microsoft.com/#/faq.
29. Microsoft Academic [@MSFTAcademic]. (2017). Some facts about the current size of our data. Stop & meet us at #kdd2017 @MLatMSFT [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/MSFTAcademic/status/897494672200921088.
30. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
31. Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 533–551. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017.
32. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.
33. OECD. (2007). Revised field of science and technology (FOS) classification in the Frascati manual. Paris, France: Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
34. Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 931–949. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6.
35. Ortega, J. L. (2014). Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.
36. Portenoy, J., Hullman, J., & West, J. D. (2016). Leveraging citation networks to visualize scholarly influence over time. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07135v2.
37. Portenoy, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Visualizing scholarly publications and citations to enhance author profiles. In R. Barret, & R. Cummings (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (pp. 1279-1282). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. doi:10.1145/3041021.3053058.
38. Prins, A. A. M., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016). Using Google Scholar in research evaluation of humanities and social science programs: A comparison with Web of Science data. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 264–270. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv049.
39. Ribas, S., Ueda, A., Santos, R. L., Ribeiro-Neto, B. (2016). Simplified relative citation ratio for static paper ranking. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.01336v1.
40. Sandulescu, V. (2016). Predicting the future relevance of research institutions—The winning solution of the KDD Cup 2016. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02728v1.
41. Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Ma, H., Eide, D., Hsu, B.-j. P., & Wang, K. (2015). An overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and applications. In A. Gangemi, S. Leonardi, & A. Panconesi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web (pp. 243–246). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2740908.2742839.
42. Tan, Z., Liu, C., Mao, Y., Guo, Y., Shen, J., & Wang, X. (2016). AceMap: A novel approach towards displaying relationship among academic literatures. In J. Bourdeau, J.A. Hendler, & R. Nkambou Nkambou (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th international conference companion on world wide web (pp. 437–442). Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. doi: 10.1145/2872518.2890514.
43. Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N., & Mariani, M. S. (2017). Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 766–782. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.014.
44. Wade, A., Kuasan, W., Yizhou, S., & Gulli, A. (2016). WSDM cup 2016: Entity ranking challenge. In P. N. Bennet, V. Josifovski, J. Neville, & F. Radlinski (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 593–594). New York: ACM.
45. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
46. Wesley-Smith, I., Bergstrom, C. T., & West, J. D. (2016). Static ranking of scholarly papers using article-level eigenfactor (ALEF). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08534v1.
47. Wilson, J., Mohan, R., Arif, M., Chaudhury, S. (2016). Ranking academic institutions on potential paper acceptance in upcoming conferences. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02828v1.
48. Xiao, S., Yan, J., Li, C., Jin, B., Wang, X., Zha, H., & Yang, X. (2016). On modeling and predicting individual paper citation count over time. In S. Kambhampati (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 2676–2682). New York: AAAI Press.