Can Microsoft Academic Help to Assess the Citation Impact of Academic Books?
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 content of BkCI is from a number of publishers exceeding the book publisher list in Scopus two times, but judging by numbers of indexed items, Scopus provides better coverage of academic books compared to BkCI.
“Meanwhile, another study has explored the distribution of publishers providing content to WoS and Scopus, and it has shown that the content of BkCI is from a number of publishers, exceeding the book publisher list in Scopus two times [82], but, judging by the numbers of indexed items, Scopus provides better coverage of academic books when compared to BkCI [90].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [90]
Books in Scopus lack detailed classification, as they are often only assigned to broad categories, but not to particular subject fields.
“books in Scopus lack detailed classification, as they are often only assigned to broad categories, but they are not assigned to the particular subject fields”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [90]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 22
- Authors
- Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kousha, Kayvan
- Venue
- Journal of Informetrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 972-984
- ISSN
- 1751-1577 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2886862840
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Informetrics (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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, academic books, Google Books, citation counts, citation coverage, bibliographic databases
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
