2018/08/04 by Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall, Kousha, Kayvan +1
Arts and Humanities · Computer Science · Decision Sciences · #Digital Libraries (cs.DL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Publishing and Scholarly Communication #Research Data Management Practices #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.01474
openalex publication_date 2018/08/04 · openalex created_date 2022/08/04 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Despite recent evidence that Microsoft Academic is an extensive source of\ncitation counts for journal articles, it is not known if the same is true for\nacademic books. This paper fills this gap by comparing citations to 16,463\nbooks from 2013-2016 in the Book Citation Index (BKCI) against automatically\nextracted citations from Microsoft Academic and Google Books in 17 fields.\nAbout 60% of the BKCI books had records in Microsoft Academic, varying by year\nand field. Citation counts from Microsoft Academic were 1.5 to 3.6 times higher\nthan from BKCI in nine subject areas across all years for books indexed by\nboth. Microsoft Academic found more citations than BKCI because it indexes more\nscholarly publications and combines citations to different editions and\nchapters. In contrast, BKCI only found more citations than Microsoft Academic\nfor books in three fields from 2013-2014. Microsoft Academic also found more\ncitations than Google Books in six fields for all years. Thus, Microsoft\nAcademic may be a useful source for the impact assessment of books when\ncomprehensive coverage is not essential.\n