Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?

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.

[1]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement , 2011, Scientometrics.

[2]  Péter Jacsó,et al.  The pros and cons of Microsoft Academic Search from a bibliometric perspective , 2011 .

[3]  Satu Alakangas,et al.  Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings? , 2016, Scientometrics.

[4]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  Empirical Evidences in Citation-Based Search Engines: Is Microsoft Academic Search dead? , 2014, Online Inf. Rev..

[5]  Martin P. Brändle,et al.  Citation analysis with microsoft academic , 2016, Scientometrics.

[6]  HarzingAnne-Wil,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science , 2016 .

[7]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[8]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004) , 2008 .

[9]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison , 2015, Scientometrics.

[10]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013 , 2013, Scientometrics.

[11]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[14]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[15]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis , 2010, Scientometrics.

[16]  Anne-Wil Harzing,et al.  Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes? , 2016, Scientometrics.

[17]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  How quickly do publications get read? The evolution of mendeley reader counts for new articles , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation , 2016, J. Informetrics.

[19]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Evaluating altmetrics , 2013, Scientometrics.

[20]  Anne-Wil Harzing.  Publish or perish , 2015, Nature.

[21]  Martin P. Brändle,et al.  The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university , 2017, Scientometrics.

[22]  Scott Carlson,et al.  Challenging Google, Microsoft Unveils a Search Tool for Scholarly Articles. , 2006 .

[23]  Yang Song,et al.  An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications , 2015, WWW.

[24]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? , 2017, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  Michel Zitt,et al.  The journal impact factor: angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on J.K. Vanclay’s article 2011 , 2012, Scientometrics.

[26]  Stefanie Haustein,et al.  Exploring data quality and retrieval strategies for mendeley reader counts , 2015 .

[27]  Satu Alakangas,et al.  Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest , 2017, Scientometrics.

[28]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Interpreting correlations between citation counts and other indicators , 2016, Scientometrics.

[29]  Matthew E Falagas,et al.  Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses , 2007, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[30]  Jian Wang,et al.  Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation , 2013, Scientometrics.