Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science

Abstract

In the context of a comprehensive Microsoft Academic (MA) study, we explored in an initial step the quality of linked references data in MA in comparison with Web of Science (WoS). Linked references are the backbone of bibliometrics, because they are the basis of the times cited information in citation indexes. We found that the concordance of linked references between MA and WoS ranges from weak to nonexistent for the full sample (publications of the University of Zurich with less than 50 linked references in MA). An analysis with a sample restricted to less than 50 linked references in WoS showed a strong agreement between linked references in MA and WoS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.aka.ms/AcademicAPI.

References

  1. Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2016). Citation score normalized by cited references (CSNCR): The introduction of a new citation impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.002.

  2. de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510.

  3. Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2017). Bridging another gap between research assessment and information retrievalThe delineation of document environments. Paper presented at the STI 2017, Paris.

  4. Harzing, A.-W. (2016). Microsoft academic (search): A Phoenix arisen from the ashes? Scientometrics, 108(3), 1637–1647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2026-y.

  5. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017a). Microsoft academic is one year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3.

  6. Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2017b). Microsoft academic: Is the Phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics, 110(1), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2185-x.

  7. Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016). An analysis of the Microsoft Academic Graph. D-Lib Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1045/september2016-herrmannova.

  8. Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3.

  9. Hug, S. E., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). Citation analysis with Microsoft academic. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8.

  10. Koch, R., & Sporl, E. (2007). Statistical methods for comparison of two measuring procedures and for calibration: Analysis of concordance, correlation and regression in the case of measuring intraocular pressure. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, 224(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-927278.

  11. Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation-coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051.

  12. Olensky, M., Schmidt, M., & van Eck, N. J. (2016). Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the web of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(10), 2550–2564. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23590.

  13. Paszcza, B. (2016). Comparison of Microsoft academic (graph) with web of science, scopus and google scholar. (Master’s Thesis), University of Southampton, Southampton. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/408647.

  14. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748.

  15. Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013). Source normalized indicators of citation impact: an overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Robin Haunschild.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haunschild, R., Hug, S.E., Brändle, M.P. et al. The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science. Scientometrics 114, 367–370 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2567-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microsoft academic
  • Web of Science
  • Linked references