Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?

Thelwall, Mike

dc.contributor.author	Thelwall, Mike	en
dc.date.accessioned	2017-10-26T11:24:44Z
dc.date.available	2017-10-26T11:24:44Z
dc.date.issued	2017-01
dc.identifier.issn	0138-9130	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620806
dc.description.abstract	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.
dc.language.iso	en	en
dc.publisher	Springer	en
dc.relation.url	https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/11192	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/	*
dc.subject	Microsoft Academic	en
dc.subject	Early citation impact	en
dc.subject	Citation analysis	en
dc.title	Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?	en
dc.type	Journal article
dc.identifier.journal	Scientometrics	en
dc.date.accepted	2017-10
rioxxterms.funder	Internal	en
rioxxterms.identifier.project	UoW261017MT	en
rioxxterms.version	AM	en
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri	https://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0	en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate	2017-10-26	en
refterms.dateFCD	2019-03-20T10:16:57Z
refterms.versionFCD	AM
refterms.dateFOA	2017-10-26T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstract	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.