Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates whether Microsoft Academic can use its web search component to identify early citations to recently published articles to help solve the problem of delays in research evaluations caused by the need to wait for citation counts to accrue. The results for 44,398 articles in Nature, Science and seven library and information science journals 1996–2017 show that Microsoft Academic and Scopus citation counts are similar for all years, with no early citation advantage for either. In contrast, Mendeley reader counts are substantially higher for more recent articles. Thus, Microsoft Academic appears to be broadly like Scopus for citation count data, and is apparently not more able to take advantage of online preprints to find early citations.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Carlson, S. (2006). Challenging Google, Microsoft unveils a search tool for scholarly articles. Chronicle of Higher Education. 52(33), A43. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ773667.

  • Chen, A. (2017). Academic Knowledge API. http://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/academic-knowledge/home.

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or perish. http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm.

  • Harzing, A. W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98(1), 565–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W. (2016). Microsoft Academic (Search): A Phoenix arisen from the ashes? Scientometrics, 108(3), 1637–1647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2017a). Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics, 110(1), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2017b). Microsoft Academic is 1 year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest. Scientometrics, 112(3), 1887–1894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hug, S. E., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. P. (2017). Citation analysis with Microsoft Academic. Scientometrics, 111(1), 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2011). The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective. Online Information Review, 35(6), 983–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 288–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Thelwall, M., & Giustini, D. (2011). Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement. Scientometrics, 91(2), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maflahi, N., & Thelwall, M. (2017). How quickly do publications get read the evolution of Mendeley reader counts for new articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Microsoft (2017a). Why a new site? http://web.archive.org/web/20170105184616/http://academic.microsoft.com/FAQ.

  • Microsoft (2017b). What’s new in version 2.0? http://academic.microsoft.com/#/faq. Accessed 1 Aug 2017.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Ayllon, M., Delgado, J., & Lopez-Cozar, E. (2014). The silent fading of an academic search engine: The case of Microsoft Academic Search. Online Information Review, 38(7), 936–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Science-Metrix (2015). Analysis of bibliometric indicators for European policies 2000–2013. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovationunion/pdf/bibliometric_indicators_for_european_policies.pdf.

  • 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 Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web (pp. 243–246). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2016). Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 337–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2017a). Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2017b). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2016). Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(6), 3036–3050. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.2355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: An empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, Z., Haustein, S. & Bowman, T (2014). Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for Mendeley reader counts. In Presentation at SIGMET Metrics 2014 workshop, 5 November 2014. Available: http://www.slideshare.net/StefanieHaustein/sigmetworkshop-asist2014.

  • Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92(2), 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

Authors
  1. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Thelwall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thelwall, M. Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?. Scientometrics 114, 325–334 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2558-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2558-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation