The purpose of this paper is to assess the viability of the scholarly search engine Microsoft Academic (MA) as a citation source for evaluating/ranking marketing journals.,This study performs a comparison between MA and Google Scholar (GS) in terms of journal coverage, h-index values and journal rankings.,Findings indicate that: MA (vs GS) covers 96.80 percent (vs 97.87 percent) of the assessed 94 marketing-focused journals; the MA-based h-index exhibits values that are 35.45 percent lower than the GS-based h-index; and that the MA-based ranking and the GS-based ranking are highly consistent. Based on these findings, MA seems to constitute a rather viable citation source for assessing a marketing journal’s impact.,This study focuses on one discipline, that is, marketing.,This study identifies some issues that would need to be fixed by the MA’s development team. It recommends some further enhancements with respect to journal title entry, publication year allocation and field classification. It also provides two up-to-date rankings for more than 90 marketing-focused journals based on actual cites (October 2018) of articles published between 2013 and 2017.

中文翻译：

---

Microsoft Academic是排名营销期刊的可行引文来源吗？

本文的目的是评估学术搜索引擎Microsoft Academic（MA）作为市场营销期刊评估/排名的引文来源的可行性。该研究对MA和Google Scholar（GS）在期刊覆盖率方面进行了比较，h-index值和期刊排名。调查结果表明：在评估的94种以市场为重点的期刊中，MA（vs GS）占96.80％（vs 97.87％）；基于MA的h指数的值比基于GS的h指数低35.45％；并且基于MA的排名和基于GS的排名高度一致。基于这些发现，MA似乎是评估营销期刊影响的一个相当可行的引文来源。本研究关注的是一个学科，即营销。这项研究确定了MA的开发团队需要解决的一些问题。它建议在期刊标题条目，出版年份分配和字段分类方面进行一些进一步的增强。它还根据2013年至2017年之间发表文章的实际引用（2018年10月）为90多种以营销为重点的期刊提供了两个最新排名。