Thanks for taking the time to share this. On closer inspection it looks
like Academic Search is a research project rather than a product; one
that has stalled, concluded or been abandoned.
I was just looking at what sources ImpactStory indexes. For scholarly
publications they seem to pull data from ORCID as well as Google
Scholar. They're probably scraping the latter, but only if you designate
a Google Scholar ID. They don't try to disentangle authors themselves,
which is probably wise. (I'm basing this on their sample profile and
some light googling.)
I think I'll probably go with one of Zotero, Mendeley or ORCID for my
project. I think ORCID might provide more benefits to my users outside
of my particular project. That makes it appealing since I'll have to
convince people to go and add the data themselves.
I wish it supported arbitrary tags for works, which would allow users to
tag a few representative items.
On 05/22/2015 10:32 PM, Dan Scott wrote:
> Hi Alex:
> On Thu, 21 May 2015 at 09:28 Alex Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the responses; keep them coming, if you have other ideas.
>> It's hard to demarcate domains, but my userbase consists largely of
>> librarians and liberal arts faculty.
>> I wasn't at all aware of Microsoft Academic Search. Their content looks
>> thorough, though it doesn' include books:
>> But based on the few searches I tried, it looks to be horrible at
> I found it funny that the following article came up in Google Now about an
> hour after I posted my previous response on the 20th:
>> Dan, can you use ORCID IDs with Zotero? (Though that might create
>> another hoop to jump through.)
> Zotero is open source, so you can theoretically do anything, but out of the
> box it doesn't do anything with ORCIDs. I'm just planning on integrating
> them (when possible) into the relational database after the RIS-to-SQL
> conversion as part of a set of cleanup / deduplication steps.