Skip to search form Skip to main content Skip to account menu You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Ortega , Isidro F. View on Wiley. Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper.
Background Citations. Methods Citations. Results Citations. Topics from this paper. GSC bus Citation index Web search engine. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Computer Science, Geography. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11 3 , — Harzing, A.
Microsoft Academic Search : A Phoenix arisen from the ashes? In Scientometrics Vol. Springer, Netherlands. Sacrifice a little accuracy for a lot more comprehensive coverage. Scientometrics, 2 , — Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Microsoft Academic is one year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest.
Haunschild, R. The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science. Heibi, I. Hendricks, G. Crossref: The sustainable source of community-owned scholarly metadata. Herzog, C. Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Hook, D. Dimensions: Building Context for Search and Evaluation. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 3, Huang, C.
Comparison of bibliographic data sources: Implications for the robustness of university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies.
Hug, S. The coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the publication output of a university. Scientometrics, 3 , — Kousha, K. Can Microsoft Academic help to assess the citation impact of academic books? Journal of Informetrics, 12 3 , — Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12 1 , — Krassowski, M.
Larsson, J. Levenshtein, V. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10 8 , — MathSciNet Google Scholar. Code to extract bibliographic data from Google Scholar v1. Reading Web of Science data into R 0. Martin-Martin, A. Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics, 11 1 , — Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12 4 , — Moed, H.
A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10 2 , — Dimensions: Re-discovering the ecosystem of scientific information. Profesional de La Informacion, 27 2 , — The silent fading of an academic search engine: The case of Microsoft Academic Search.
Online Information Review, 38 7 , — Orduna-Malea, E. Google Scholar as a source for scholarly evaluation: A bibliographic review of database errors. Classic papers: Using Google Scholar to detect the highly-cited documents. In 23rd International conference on science and technology indicators pp. Ortega, J. Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook.
Cambridge: Chandos Publishing. Book Google Scholar. Peroni, S. OpenCitations, an infrastructure organization for open scholarship. R Core Team. Rovira, C. Ranking by relevance and citation counts, a comparative study: Google Scholar, Microsoft academic, WoS and scopus.
Future Internet, 11 9 , Shotton, D. Publishing: Open citations. Nature, , — Funders should mandate open citations. Nature, , Tay, A. Thelwall, M. Microsoft Academic: A multidisciplinary comparison of citation counts with Scopus and Mendeley for 29 journals. Journal of Informetrics, 11 4 , — Does Microsoft Academic find early citations? Scientometrics, 1 , — Microsoft Academic automatic document searches: Accuracy for journal articles and suitability for citation analysis.
Journal of Informetrics, 12 1 , 1—9. Dimensions: A competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? Journal of Informetrics, 12 2 , — Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. Crossref as a new source of citation data: A comparison with Web of Science and Scopus. Van Noorden, R. November 7. Visser, M. Walker, A. Wang, K. Microsoft academic graph: When experts are not enough. Wickham, H. New York: Springer. Wilke, C. Wu, J. CiteSeerX: 20 years of service to scholarly big data.
Download references. We thank Medialab UGR Universidad de Granada for providing funding to cover the cost of hosting the interactive web application Footnote 54 created to explore the data used in this study. We thank Jing Xuan Xie for translating the abstract to Chinese. We thank Asura Enkhbayar for suggesting the use of an upset plot in Fig. Lastly, we thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments, which have helped improved the manuscript substantially. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar.
The original online version of this article was revised: In the original publication of the article, Fig. Reprints and Permissions. Scientometrics , — Download citation. Received : 30 April Published : 21 September Issue Date : January Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:. Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search SpringerLink Search. Download PDF. Footnote 3 Other citation indexes have been developed within various academic platforms, but these are not analysed in this study, for various reasons: CiteSeerX, Footnote 4 from Penn State University, indexes documents in the public web and not those that are only found behind paywalls Wu et al.
Previous analyses of coverage Document coverage varies across data sources Ortega , and studies that analyse differences in coverage can inform prospective users about the comprehensiveness of each database in different subject areas. Microsoft academic Microsoft Academic has been recently reported to cover over million publications Wang et al.
Dimensions Dimensions covers over million publications, as well as other kinds of records such as grants data, clinical trials, patents, and policy documents Herzog et al. Objective The citation index coverage studies published so far have analysed a heterogeneous variety of samples of documents, disciplines, and data sources.
Methods Direct coverage comparison versus comparison of citations The most direct method to compare document coverage across different data sources would be to obtain a complete list of all documents covered by each source, match the documents across databases, and report the size of the overlaps Visser et al.
Table 1 No. Table 2 Rounds of the matching process Full size table. Full size image. Table 3 Percentage of citations found by each data source, relative to the total number of citations found overall and by broad areas Full size table. Overall and by broad subject areas Full size table.
Comparison with previous studies The results generally agree with previous studies comparing the coverage of Microsoft Academic and Dimensions. Conclusions Comprehensiveness of data sources across subject categories The results show that Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive data source among the six studied here.
Implications for academic literature search Although Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic are the two most comprehensive bibliographic data sources analysed in this study, their search functionalities have a number of limitations, such as limited support of Boolean and other types of search operators, limited filtering capabilities Google Scholar , and non-transparent algorithms to process queries and rank the documents in the results page Microsoft Academic uses artificial intelligence, and Google Scholar uses publicly unknown heuristics to rank documents by relevance Beel and Gipp a , b , c ; Martin-Martin et al.
Implications for bibliometric analyses As new sources of bibliographic data including citation data become openly available and validated for specific types of bibliometric analyses, the need to rely on expensive proprietary data sources may diminish. Change history 04 December In the original publication of the article, Fig. Notes 1. References Baas, J.
Article Google Scholar Beel, J. Article Google Scholar Chapman, K. Article Google Scholar Damerau, F. Google Scholar Dowle, M. Article Google Scholar Fraser, N. Article Google Scholar Gusenbauer, M. Article Google Scholar Haddaway, N. Be sure to continue checking the Microsoft Academic 2. Enago Academy, the knowledge arm of Enago, offers comprehensive and up-to-date resources on academic research and scholarly publishing to all levels of scholarly professionals: students, researchers, editors, publishers, and academic societies.
It is also a popular platform for networking, allowing researchers to learn, share, and discuss their experiences within their network and community. The team, which comprises subject matter experts, academicians, trainers, and technical project managers, are passionate about helping researchers at all levels establish a successful career, both within and outside academia. Reaxys: Chemistry Search Engine by Elsevier.
Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:. We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you. Search engine for researchers. Reading time 3 minutes. Author Enago Academy. You might also like. Career Corner. Prev Next.
0コメント