30 nov. 2016

Microsoft Academic: is the Phoenix getting wings?

A DIGEST OF

Harzing, A-W & Alakangas, S. 
Microsoft Academic: is the Phoenix getting wings?
Scientometrics(in press)


OBJECTIVES
1. To compare publication and citation coverage of the new Microsoft Academic with Google Scholar, Scopus, and the Web of Science.
2. To investigate the extent to which the findings change if using the more liberal “estimated citation count” in Microsoft Academic rather than the more conservative “linked citation count”
METHOD
Sample
145 Associate Professors and Full Professors at the University of Melbourne, Australia in 37 disciplines grouped into 5 broad disciplinary areas: Life Sciences, Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Humanities 
Design
For each researcher, 4 indicators were calculated from 4 different sources.
- Indicators: Number of papers; Citations received; h-index; hla-index
- Sources: Google Scholar; Microsoft Academic; Scopus; Web of Science
Publish or Perish (PoP) was used to conduct searches for Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic.
Period analyzed
All time. Data collected in the first week of October 2016.
RESULTS
Microsoft Academic coverage has improved substantially (an average growth of nearly 10%). The biggest increase is found for several books or book chapters, as well as some publications in minor journals.
In terms of data quality, namely several erroneous year allocations, and citations that were split between a version of the publication with the main title only and a version with both the main title and a sub-title – have not yet been resolved.
On average Microsoft Academic citations, are very similar to Scopus and Web of Science citations and substantively lower only than Google Scholar citations.
As to disciplines, Microsoft Academic has fewer citations than Scopus and, marginally, than Web of Science for the Life Sciences and Sciences. In the Social Sciences, however, Microsoft Academic has a clear advantage over both Scopus and Web of Science, providing 1.5 to 2 times as many citations for the sample. The difference is even starker for the Humanities, where Microsoft Academic has a coverage that is 1.7 to nearly 3 times as high.
Google Scholar citations were higher than Microsoft Academic citations for all but one individual in the sample
FIG 1. Average number of papers and citations for 145 academics across Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and Web of Science
  
FIG 2. Average citations for 145 academics across Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and Web of Science, grouped by five major disciplinary areas

Taking Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts rather than linked citation counts as our basis for the comparison with Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar does change the comparative picture quite dramatically.
Looking at our overall sample of 145 academics, Microsoft Academic’s average estimated citation counts (3873) are much higher than both Scopus (2413) and Web of Science (2168) citation counts, and very similar to Google Scholar’s average counts (3982).
For the Life Sciences Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are in fact 12% higher than Google Scholar counts, whereas for the Sciences they are almost identical.
FIG 3. Comparison of average Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts with Google Scholar citation counts, grouped by five major disciplinary areas

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that the new incarnation of Microsoft Academic presents with an excellent alternative for citation analysis. Moreover, the comparison of citation growth over the last 6 months also suggests that Microsoft Academic is still increasing its coverage.

FINAL REMARKS

To the best of our knowledge, this work represents one of the first empirical analyses concerned to tackle with the estimated citation counts, a procedure followed by the new generation of academic search engines.

This constitutes a paramount shift in citation analyses as it manages estimated citations instead of real citations. In this sense, we would like to emphasize the following results provided:

a) When using the more liberal estimated citation counts for Microsoft Academic its average citations counts were higher than both Scopus and the Web of Science for all disciplines.

b) For the Life Sciences, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are even higher than Google Scholar counts, whereas for the Sciences they are almost identical.

c) For Engineering, Microsoft Academic estimated citation counts are 14% lower than Google Scholar citations, whereas for the Social Sciences this is 23%. Only for the Humanities are they substantially (69%) lower than Google Scholar citations.

When comparing Academic Search with Google Scholar, we need to take into account that Google Scholar does not work – at least currently – with estimated citations. Therefore, the more fair comparison should be with the so-called Microsoft Academic’s conservative citation counts. However, the similar results found in some disciplines may be a signal of accuracy in the estimation processes, which in turn may change the way in which academic search engines will work in the future.

Faced with this scenario, we may ask a question in the wind… do we need to estimate when we can gather everything?

24 nov. 2016

Impact of Macedonian Biomedical Journals in Google Scholar

Mirko Spiroski
Current Scientific Impact of Macedonian Biomedical Journals (2016) in Google Scholar Database Analysed with the SoftwarePublish or Perish
Maced Med Electr J, 2016 May 30; 50022
dx.doi.org/10.3889/mmej.2016.50022

OBJECTIVES
The aims of this paper are: to analyze Macedonian biomedical journals in the Google Scholar database with the software Publish or Perish, to present their current scientific impact, to rank the journals, and to advice the authors about the possibilities where to publish their papers.

METHODS
Biomedical journals in the Republic of Macedonia included in Macedonian Association of Medical Editors (MAME) are analyzed. The results are obtained with the software Publish or Perish which analyze publicly available scholarly papers in the Google Scholar database (May 11, 2016).

RESULTS
From 38 journals only 25 has indexed one or more papers in the Google Scholar database (Table 1). The rest of 13 journals are without any paper indexed in this base and are not included in this investigation. The biggest number of citations in the Google Scholar database have the journals Prilozi - MANU, 0351-3254 (1622); Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 1857-5773 (838) and Macedonian Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 1857-5552 (705)
                                           Table 1
Only 18 journals received citations on Google Scholar(Table 2) 
Table 2

Available at

8 nov. 2016

The Google Scholar revolution: opening the academic Pandora's box

Enrique Orduna-Malea, Alberto Martín-Martín, Juan M. Ayllón, Emilio Delgado López-Cózar

La revolución Google Scholar: 
Destapando la caja de Pandora académica
Editorial Universidad de Granada; 
UNE. Unión de Editoriales Universitarias Españolas
ISBN 978-84-338-5941-9 (print); ISBN 978-84-338-5985-3 (PDF)

Google Scholar brought a true revolution in the way scientific information is searched, found, and accessed. The simple search box, already a de facto standard for searching information, takes users to numerous and relevant results including all document types, written in any language, and published in any country. Using this search engine is easy, quick, and free. However, what started as a search engine has unintentionally become a very valuable source of data for research evaluation, with bibliometric applications. That is, a true "academic Pandora's box".

The goal of this book is, mainly, to provide an in-depth description of all the characteristics and features of Google Scholar. Its origin and evolution are described, and the way it works, its size, coverage, and growth is analysed thoroughly. All its functionalities are delineated, and its strengths, weaknesses, and dangers are discussed.


A comprehensive review of all the scientific literature dealing empirically with the behaviour of this platform is carried out.

Additionally, this work also discusses the main products that have been derived from the search engine. Google Scholar Citations, born as a author profile service in which researchers could generate a bibliographic profile to display their documents, as well as the number of times they have been cited, including various bibliometric indicators. Google Scholar Metrics is also discussed. This product was created as a ranking of the most influential scientific publications sorted by their h index. Apart from journals, it includes some conferences and repositories also covered by Google Scholar.

Third party products created by independent researchers are also analysed. All these products make use of Google Scholar as a source of data for bibliometric analyses: Publish or Perish, Scholarometer, H Index Scholar, Journal Scholar Metrics, Publishers Scholar Metrics, Proceedings Scholar Metrics y Scholar Mirrors.


In short, this books offers an all-inclusive and meticulous view of Google Scholar and its related products. It is the result of the intense research work carried out by the authors during almost a decade at Universidad de Granada and Universidad Politécnica de Valencia where they work as professors and researchers.

Available from