Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?

Harzing, Anne‐Wil

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2026-y

Cited by 42 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Replicating our detailed study of the first author's publication record (Harzing, 2016), we find that for all but one of the 40 journal articles included in her h-index of 49, the Microsoft Academic estimated citation count is within -24%/+20% of the Google Scholar citation count, with absolute differences ranging from -34 to +42 citations. More than half of the absolute differences are in a range of -/+ 10 citations.…”

Section: Mas Estimated Citation Countsmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…However, so far the bibliometric research community has paid little attention to the fourth data-source in this landscape: Microsoft Academic (Search). Although a Google Scholar search with the words Google Scholar, Web of Science, or Scopus in the title results in hundreds of journal articles for each of these three databases, the same search for Microsoft Academic delivers only six published journal articles (see Harzing, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in March 2016 Microsoft officially launched a new service: Microsoft Academic. In May 2016, Harzing (2016) provided -for her own publication record -a detailed comparison of coverage of the new Microsoft Academic with Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science, and proclaimed it to be "a Phoenix arisen from the ashes". Harzing (2016) showed that Microsoft Academic significantly outperformed the Web of Science in terms of both publication and citation coverage, and could also be considered to be at least an equal to Scopus on both counts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Harzing

Alakangas

2016

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we compare publication and citation coverage of the new Microsoft Academic with all other major sources for bibliometric data: Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science, using a sample of 145 academics in five broad disciplinary areas: Life Sciences, Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Humanities. When using the more conservative linked citation counts for Microsoft Academic, this data-source provides higher citation counts than both Scopus and the Web of Science for Engineering, the Social Sciences, and the Humanities, whereas citation counts for the Life Sciences and the Sciences are fairly similar across these three databases. Google Scholar still reports the highest citation counts for all disciplines.When using the more liberal estimated citation counts for Microsoft Academic, its average citations counts are higher than both Scopus and the Web of Science for all disciplines. For the Life Sciences, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are higher even than Google Scholar counts, whereas for the Sciences they are almost identical. For Engineering, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are 14% lower than Google Scholar citation counts, whereas for the Social Sciences this is 23%. Only for the Humanities are they substantially (69%) lower than Google Scholar citations counts.Overall, this first large-scale comparative study suggests that the new incarnation of Microsoft Academic presents us with an excellent alternative for citation analysis. We therefore conclude that the Microsoft Academic Phoenix is undeniably growing wings; it might be ready to fly off and start its adult life in the field of research evaluation soon.

show abstract

Section: Mas Estimated Citation Countsmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Harzing

Alakangas

2016

Scientometrics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the initial design study, Microsoft Academic Search has been decommissioned and replaced with Microsoft Academic, a service powered by a database called Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG), which indexes scholarly articles using content that search engine Bing crawls from the web (Sinha et al, 2015;Harzing, 2016). Since this update, Microsoft Academic has been gaining traction as a bibliometric research tool, as it approaches Google Scholar in terms of coverage while having much better structure and functionality for researchers akin to Scopus and Web of Science (Hug et al, 2017).…”

Section: Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging Citation Networks to Visualize Scholarly Influence Over Time

Portenoy

Hullman

West

2017

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the influence of a scholar's work is an important task for funding organizations, academic departments, and researchers. Common methods, such as measures of citation counts, can ignore much of the nuance and multidimensionality of scholarly influence. We present an approach for generating dynamic visualizations of scholars' careers. This approach uses an animated node-link diagram showing the citation network accumulated around the researcher over the course of the career in concert with key indicators, highlighting influence both within and across fields. We developed our design in collaboration with one funding organization-the Pew Biomedical Scholars program-but the methods are generalizable to visualizations of scholarly influence. We applied the design method to the Microsoft Academic Graph, which includes more than 120 million publications. We validate our abstractions throughout the process through collaboration with the Pew Biomedical Scholars program officers and summative evaluations with their scholars.

show abstract

“…In this study, we focus on five established finance journal ranking methods from the 2016 edition of Harzing's Journal Quality List (Harzing, 2016) and one citation count method from the 2010 edition of the Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide (Association of Business Schools (ABS), 2010). Pearson's rank correlation coefficients and their ranked performance when compared with 100 random (arbitrary) rankings generated from Excel measured by Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) are observed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Note about the Finance Journal Rankings and Citation Counts

Luh-Yu¹

2016

AAMJAF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to examine the (rank) correlation coefficient of five finance journal ranking methods from Harzing's Journal Quality List in 2016 and one citation count method from the Association Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal QualityGuide in 2010. We also propose a new way of comparing the actual ranks from the above six journal ranking methods with the random ranks generated from Excel to address which finance ranking method deviates the most from a random ranking.

show abstract

Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?

Cited by 42 publications

References 9 publications

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?

Leveraging Citation Networks to Visualize Scholarly Influence Over Time

A Note about the Finance Journal Rankings and Citation Counts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About