Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKousha, Kayvan
dc.contributor.authorAbdoli, Mahshid
dc.contributor.authorThelwall, Mike
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-26T15:19:42Z
dc.date.available2018-01-26T15:19:42Z
dc.date.issued2018-02-03
dc.identifier.citationKousha, K., Thelwall, M. and Abdoli, A. (2018) Can Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis, Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), pp. 287-298.
dc.identifier.issn1751-1577
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.009
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/621041
dc.description.abstractMany journals post accepted articles online before they are formally published in an issue. Early citation impact evidence for these articles could be helpful for timely research evaluation and to identify potentially important articles that quickly attract many citations. This article investigates whether Microsoft Academic can help with this task. For over 65,000 Scopus in-press articles from 2016 and 2017 across 26 fields, Microsoft Academic found 2-5 times as many citations as Scopus, depending on year and field. From manual checks of 1,122 Microsoft Academic citations not found in Scopus, Microsoft Academic’s citation indexing was faster but not much wider than Scopus for journals. It achieved this by associating citations to preprints with their subsequent in-press versions and by extracting citations from in-press articles. In some fields its coverage of scholarly digital libraries, such as arXiv.org, was also an advantage. Thus, Microsoft Academic seems to be a more comprehensive automatic source of citation counts for in-press articles than Scopus.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/17511577
dc.subjectMicrosoft Academic
dc.subjectin-press articles
dc.subjectearly impact
dc.subjectearly citation
dc.subjectScopus
dc.titleCan Microsoft Academic assess the early citation impact of in-press articles? A multi-discipline exploratory analysis
dc.typeJournal article
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Informetrics
dc.date.accepted2018-01-17
rioxxterms.funderUniversity of Wolverhampton
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUoW260118
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-02-03
dc.source.volume12
dc.source.issue1
dc.source.beginpage287
dc.source.endpage298
refterms.dateFCD2018-10-19T08:41:03Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-03T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstractMany journals post accepted articles online before they are formally published in an issue. Early citation impact evidence for these articles could be helpful for timely research evaluation and to identify potentially important articles that quickly attract many citations. This article investigates whether Microsoft Academic can help with this task. For over 65,000 Scopus in-press articles from 2016 and 2017 across 26 fields, Microsoft Academic found 2-5 times as many citations as Scopus, depending on year and field. From manual checks of 1,122 Microsoft Academic citations not found in Scopus, Microsoft Academic’s citation indexing was faster but not much wider than Scopus for journals. It achieved this by associating citations to preprints with their subsequent in-press versions and by extracting citations from in-press articles. In some fields its coverage of scholarly digital libraries, such as arXiv.org, was also an advantage. Thus, Microsoft Academic seems to be a more comprehensive automatic source of citation counts for in-press articles than Scopus.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version
Thumbnail
Name:
Can Microsoft Academic assess ...
Size:
784.3Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0