Weekly reading 29.2017

Carole J. Lee, David Moher, Sven E. Hug, Michael Ochsner, Martin P. Brändle

Promote scientific integrity via journal peer review data

Carole J. Lee, David Moher


The note

The authors suggest journals or big printing houses should consider implementing peer review evaluation system. Moreover, there should be lunched a research program on peer review, especially in an era of openness in science. We should be open an give research data and open access to the manuscripts, however we do not want to show how the peer review process looked like.

The implementation could be similar to anti-plagiarism software CrossCheck which could be integrated in a publishing process.

That kind of a system could prevent publishers from publishing poor quality research and therefore, save some money.

Citation analysis with microsoft academic

Sven E. Hug, Michael Ochsner, Martin P. Brändle


The aim

The main aim of this paper was to check whether the Microsoft Academic (MA) could be used as a  tool for bibliometric analyses.

The note

At the beginning the authors described in details the structure of the database f. e. every category of meta data. Then, they showed how to retrieve the data fro the database using special queries and using the API. In the third part they picked 3 researchers and searched for their works in the Microsoft Academic and  the Scopus database and compared the results.

It is not difficult to retrieve data for Microsoft Academic via special API. It is much easier than in Google Scholar. However, the database of Google Scholar is larger, but the MA database is growing fast.

The results

All publications from Scopus were found at Microsoft Academic, there were no additional ones. The metadata was nat as good as in Scopus. There were missing authors names and some papers had not appropriate year.

There are many advantages of the Microsoft’s service for scholars. Among these is the combination of social media platform and a large database of scientific papers. The way of retrieving data is much easier than in Google Scholar.

The main disadvantages are the lack of the possibility to use DOI identifier as a part of search query and the lack of document type metadata.