The Coverage of Microsoft Academic: Analyzing the Publication Output of a University
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS.
“However, although the share of conference proceedings articles in Scopus and in WoS is statistically similar (approximately 10%) [52], the majority of studies determined better coverage of conference material in Scopus when compared to WoS [26,39,53,55,57,59].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [59]
The shorter time frame of citation coverage in Scopus may be compensated by its wider overall content coverage.
“These findings suggest that a shorter time frame of citation coverage in Scopus might be very well compensated by the wider overall coverage of content.”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [59]
Authors employing DOI matching have usually reported a certain amount of missing or not functional DOIs in both WoS and Scopus.
“authors employing this method have usually reported a certain amount of missing or not functional DOIs in both DBs [53,57,59].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [59]
Inconsistencies in document types may occur because DBs differ by the document types they index and by classification of documents, so some documents from the same source are present in one DB but not the other.
“These inconsistencies may occur due to the fact that DBs differ by the document types that they index and by the classification of the documents, therefore some documents from the same source are present in one DB, but not in the other”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278 · see citing works
Introduction to Information Retrieval
Manning, C. D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809071 · Cited by 11,288 · see citing works
The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 · Cited by 5,274 · see citing works
A review of the literature on citation impact indicators
Waltman, L. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007 · Cited by 1,356 · see citing works
Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation
Moed, H. F. (2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3714-7 · Cited by 1,334 · see citing works
An Overview of Microsoft Academic Service (MAS) and Applications
Sinha, A., Shen, Z., Song, Y., Ma, H., Eide, D., Hsu, B.-J. P., & Wang, K. (2015) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2740908.2742839 · Cited by 968 · see citing works
Larsen, P. O., & von Ins, M. (2010) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z · Cited by 964 · see citing works
Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar
Orduña‐Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín‐Martín, A., & López‐Cózar, E. D. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus
Moed, H. F., Bar‐Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Citation analysis with microsoft academic
Hug, S. E., Ochsner, M., & Brändle, M. P. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2247-8 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Self-citationBosman, J., van Mourik, I., Rasch, M., Sieverts, E. G., & Verhoeff, H. (2006) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Prins, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Wouters, P. F. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv049 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Microsoft Academic: is the phoenix getting wings?
Harzing, A.-W. K., & Alakangas, S. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2185-x · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in web of science and scopus
Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valderrama-Zurián, J.-C. (2016) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2015.11.008 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
An Analysis of the Microsoft Academic Graph
Herrmannová, D., & Knoth, P. (2016) · D-Lib Magazine · doi:10.1045/september2016-herrmannova · Cited by 77 · see citing works
On modeling and predicting individual paper citation count over time
Xiao, S., Yan, J., Li, C., Jin, B., Wang, X., Yang, X., Chu, S. M., & Zhu, H. (2016) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Microsoft Academic (Search): a Phoenix arisen from the ashes?
Harzing, A.-W. K. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2026-y · Cited by 52 · see citing works
The linguistic patterns and rhetorical structure of citation context: An approach using n-grams
Bertin, M., Atanassova, I., Sugimoto, C. R., & Lariviere, V. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2134-8 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Predicting the future relevance of research institutions - The winning solution of the KDD Cup 2016Preprint
Sandulescu, V., & Chiru, M. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.02728 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Microsoft Academic is one year old: the Phoenix is ready to leave the nest
Harzing, A.-W. K., & Alakangas, S. (2017) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network
Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N., & Mariani, M. S. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.014 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Static Ranking of Scholarly Papers using Article-Level Eigenfactor (ALEF)Preprint
Wesley-Smith, I., Bergstrom, C. T., & West, J. D. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.08534 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Fagan, J. C. (2017) · Information Technology and Libraries · doi:10.6017/ital.v36i2.9718 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Más-Bleda, A., & Thelwall, M. A. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2118-8 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Academic search engines : a quantitative outlook
Ortega, J. L. (2014) · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Analysing Trends in Computer Science Research
Effendy, S., & Yap, R. H. C. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3041021.3053064 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Quantifying the diaspora of knowledge in the last century
Domenico, M. D., Omodei, E., & Arenas, À. (2016) · Applied Network Science · doi:10.1007/s41109-016-0017-9 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Tan, Z., Changfeng, L., Mao, Y., et al. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2872518.2890514 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook
(2015) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-04-2015-0119 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Quantifying and suppressing ranking bias in a large citation network
Vaccario, G., Medo, M., Wider, N., & Mariani, M. S. (2017) · reroDoc Digital Library · doi:10.7892/boris.108621 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Gumpenberger, C., Sorz, J., Wieland, M., et al. (2016) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw013 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Model-based evaluation of scientific impact indicators
Medo, M., & Cimini, G. (2016) · Physical review. E · doi:10.1103/physreve.94.032312 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Wade, A. D., Wang, K., Sun, Y., et al. (2016) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/2835776.2855119 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Chemical information for chemists: a primer
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.52-0283 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Ensemble Enabled Weighted PageRankPreprint
Luo, D., Gong, C., Hu, R., et al. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1604.05462 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Investigations on Rating Computer Sciences Conferences
Effendy, S., & Yap, R. H. C. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2872518.2890525 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Categorizations and annotations of citation in research evaluation
Bertin, M. (2008) · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Visualizing Scholarly Publications and Citations to Enhance Author Profiles
Portenoy, J., & West, J. D. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3041021.3053058 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Simplified Relative Citation Ratio for Static Paper Ranking: UFMG/LATIN at WSDM Cup 2016Preprint
Ribas, S., Ueda, A., Santos, R. L. T., Ribeiro-Neto, B. A., & Ziviani, N. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.01336 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Ranking academic institutions on potential paper acceptance in upcoming conferencesPreprint
Wilson, J., Mohan, R., Arif, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02828 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Herrmannová, D., & Knoth, P. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2910896.2925448 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Microsoft Academic is on the verge of becoming a bibliometric superpower
Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P. (2017) · London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citationSemantometrics: Towards Fulltext-based Research Evaluation
Herrmannová, D., & Knoth, P. (2016) · Open Research Online (The Open University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.04180 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Portenoy, J., Hullman, J., & West, J. D. (2016). Leveraging citation networks to visualize scholarly influence over time. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.07135v2 · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World
Pranckutė, R. (2021) · Publications · doi:10.3390/publications9010012 · Cited by 2,696 · see citing works
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379 · see citing works
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 · Cited by 1,018 · see citing works
Gusenbauer, M. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5 · Cited by 687 · see citing works
Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases
Gusenbauer, M. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04289-7 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Harzing, A.-W. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Core Elements in the Process of Citing Publications: Conceptual Overview of the Literature
Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.002 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Can Microsoft Academic Help to Assess the Citation Impact of Academic Books?
Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2018) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.003 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hug, S. E., & Brändle, M. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Hug, Sven E.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2017-10-03
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1551-1571
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W2605124925
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 15.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
- Keywords
- Microsoft Academic, bibliographic database coverage, Scopus, Web of Science, citation counts, metadata quality, working papers, dissertations, open access publications, bibliometric analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
