The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university
The coverage of Microsoft Academic: analyzing the publication output of a university
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-017-2535-3
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Brandle, Martin P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hug, Sven E.;Brandle, Martin P.
这是第一次详细研究微软学术（MA）的覆盖范围。基于一所大学的完整和验证的出版物列表，MA的覆盖率进行了评估，并与两个基准数据库，Scopus和Web of Science（WoS），在个人出版物的水平进行了比较。分析了引文数量，并检查了与数据检索和数据质量相关的问题。编写Perl脚本，根据出版物标题从MA检索元数据。该脚本在GitHub上免费提供。我们发现，MA在很大程度上涵盖了期刊文章、工作论文和会议项目，并且索引了比基准数据库更多的文档类型（例如，工作文件、论文）。MA在涵盖与书籍相关的文档类型和会议项目方面明显超过Scopus和WoS，但在期刊文章方面略落后于Scopus。MA的覆盖范围有利于大多数研究领域的评估文献计量学，包括经济学/商业，计算机/信息科学和数学。然而，MA在人文学科、非英语出版物和开放获取出版物的覆盖方面表现出与Scopus和WoS相似的偏见。MA和基准数据库之间的引文数量的等级相关性很高。我们发现，89.5%的出版物的出版年份是正确的，95.1%的期刊文章的作者人数是正确的。鉴于MA的快速和持续发展，我们得出结论，MA即将成为一个文献计量学的超级大国。然而，对MA元数据质量的全面研究仍然缺乏。
This is the first detailed study on the coverage of Microsoft Academic (MA). Based on the complete and verified publication list of a university, the coverage of MA was assessed and compared with two benchmark databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), on the level of individual publications. Citation counts were analyzed, and issues related to data retrieval and data quality were examined. A Perl script was written to retrieve metadata from MA based on publication titles. The script is freely available on GitHub. We find that MA covers journal articles, working papers, and conference items to a substantial extent and indexes more document types than the benchmark databases (e.g., working papers, dissertations). MA clearly surpasses Scopus and WoS in covering book-related document types and conference items but falls slightly behind Scopus in journal articles. The coverage of MA is favorable for evaluative bibliometrics in most research fields, including economics/business, computer/information sciences, and mathematics. However, MA shows biases similar to Scopus and WoS with regard to the coverage of the humanities, non-English publications, and open-access publications. Rank correlations of citation counts are high between MA and the benchmark databases. We find that the publication year is correct for 89.5% of all publications and the number of authors is correct for 95.1% of the journal articles. Given the fast and ongoing development of MA, we conclude that MA is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower. However, comprehensive studies on the quality of MA metadata are still lacking.