@article{haley2014ranking,
  abstract = {Recently, Harzing's Publish or Perish software was updated to include Microsoft Academic Search as a second citation database search option for computing various citation-based metrics. This article explores the new search option by scoring 50 top economics and finance journals and comparing them with the results obtained using the original Google Scholar-based search option. The new database delivers significantly smaller scores for all metrics, but the rank correlations across the two databases for the h-index, g-index, AWCR, and e-index are significantly correlated, especially when the time frame is restricted to more recent years. Comparisons are also made to the Article Influence score from eigenfactor.org and to the RePEc h-index, both of which adjust for journal-level self-citations.},
  author = {Haley, M. Ryan},
  doi = {10.1002/asi.23080},
  interhash = {4c6796cff62fe5c8a8cf638f9785cd14},
  intrahash = {29feb827b9f64fa5828eb4e6298d38f7},
  issn = {2330-1643},
  journal = {Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology},
  number = 5,
  pages = {1079--1084},
  title = {Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar: How does the new publish or perish option compare?},
  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.23080},
  volume = 65,
  year = 2014
}

@article{li2012validating,
  abstract = {This paper investigates whether CiteULike and Mendeley are useful for measuring scholarly influence, using a sample of 1,613 papers published in Nature and Science in 2007. Traditional citation counts from the Web of Science (WoS) were used as benchmarks to compare with the number of users who bookmarked the articles in one of the two free online reference manager sites. Statistically significant correlations were found between the user counts and the corresponding WoS citation counts, suggesting that this type of influence is related in some way to traditional citation-based scholarly impact but the number of users of these systems seems to be still too small for them to challenge traditional citation indexes.},
  author = {Li, Xuemei and Thelwall, Mike and Giustini, Dean},
  doi = {10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x},
  interhash = {9f186a30dbe5af5dec8a49604bcca3dd},
  intrahash = {60c73c95336adf02c315c7b4c434cfd4},
  issn = {0138-9130},
  journal = {Scientometrics},
  language = {English},
  number = 2,
  pages = {461-471},
  publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
  title = {Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement},
  url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0580-x},
  volume = 91,
  year = 2012
}

@article{1107505,
  address = {New York, NY, USA},
  author = {Rahm, Erhard and Thor, Andreas},
  doi = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1107499.1107505},
  interhash = {92462ce1f6fbd8f90ee7779229a19266},
  intrahash = {89a878b62f5bbe8b2d81b9651e8ffbdf},
  issn = {0163-5808},
  journal = {SIGMOD Rec.},
  number = 4,
  pages = {48--53},
  publisher = {ACM Press},
  title = {Citation analysis of database publications},
  volume = 34,
  year = 2005
}