Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest
Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3
复制
发表时间：
2017-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Alakangas, Satu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harzing, Anne-Wil;Alakangas, Satu
我们调查了微软学术（MA）重新推出后一年多的报道。首先，我们对第一作者在四个主要数据源中的记录进行了详细的比较：谷歌学术（GS），MA，Scopus和Web of Science（WoS），并表明对于最重要的学术出版物，期刊文章和书籍，GS和MA显示出非常相似的出版物和引文覆盖率，将Scopus和WoS远远落后，特别是在引文数量方面。对五个主要学科领域的145名学者进行的第二次大规模比较证实，GS和MA的引文覆盖率在五个学科中的四个学科中非常相似。人文学科的MA引文覆盖率仍然大大低于GS覆盖率，反映了MA对非期刊出版物的覆盖率较低。然而，我们不应该忘记，人文学科的MA覆盖率仍然使Scopus和WoS中的这一学科的覆盖率相形见绌。在得出关于MA覆盖率的明确结论之前，其他研究人员最好用不同的样本来验证我们的发现。然而，根据我们目前的研究结果，我们认为，在重新启动后仅一年，MA就迅速成为首选的数据源;它似乎将GS显示的跨学科的全面覆盖与Scopus和WoS典型的更结构化的数据呈现方法相结合。凤凰似乎已经准备好离开巢穴，一切都准备好了，开始对它的成年生活进行研究评估。
We investigate the coverage of Microsoft Academic (MA) just over a year after its re-launch. First, we provide a detailed comparison for the first author's record across the four major data sources: Google Scholar (GS), MA, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) and show that for the most important academic publications, journal articles and books, GS and MA display very similar publication and citation coverage, leaving both Scopus and WoS far behind, especially in terms of citation counts. A second, large scale, comparison for 145 academics across the five main disciplinary areas confirms that citation coverage for GS and MA is quite similar for four of the five disciplines. MA citation coverage in the Humanities is still substantially lower than GS coverage, reflecting MA's lower coverage of non-journal publications. However, we shouldn't forget that MA coverage for the Humanities still dwarfs coverage for this discipline in Scopus and WoS. It would be desirable for other researchers to verify our findings with different samples before drawing a definitive conclusion about MA coverage. However, based on our current findings we suggest that, only one year after its re-launch, MA is rapidly become the data source of choice; it appears to be combining the comprehensive coverage across disciplines, displayed by GS, with the more structured approach to data presentation, typical of Scopus and WoS. The Phoenix seems to be ready to leave the nest, all set to start its life into an adulthood of research evaluation.