The number of linked references of publications in Microsoft Academic in comparison with the Web of Science (original) (raw)

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.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

• Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
• Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
• Cancel anytime View plans

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

References

• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• de Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3683.510.
  Article Google Scholar
• Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2017). Bridging another gap between research assessment and information retrieval_—_The delineation of document environments. Paper presented at the STI 2017, Paris.
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• Herrmannova, D., & Knoth, P. (2016). An analysis of the Microsoft Academic Graph. D-Lib Magazine. https://doi.org/10.1045/september2016-herrmannova.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8.
  Google Scholar
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• Lin, L. I. (1989). A concordance correlation-coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics, 45(1), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532051.
  Article MATH Google Scholar
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• 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.
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar
• 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.
  Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstr. 1, 70569, Stuttgart, Germany
   Robin Haunschild
2. Evaluation Office, University of Zurich, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
   Sven E. Hug
3. Zentrale Informatik, University of Zurich, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
   Martin P. Brändle
4. Main Library, University of Zurich, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland
   Martin P. Brändle
5. Division for Science and Innovation Studies, Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society, Hofgartenstr. 8, 80539, Munich, Germany
   Lutz Bornmann

Authors

1. Robin Haunschild
2. Sven E. Hug
3. Martin P. Brändle
4. Lutz Bornmann

Corresponding author

Correspondence toRobin Haunschild.

Rights and permissions

About this article

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

• Received: 11 October 2017
• Published: 10 November 2017
• Issue date: January 2018
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2567-8

Keywords