Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011860303 = product of:
  0.071161814 = sum of:
    0.035580907 = weight(_text_:web in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035580907 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
    0.035580907 = weight(_text_:web in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035580907 = score(doc=3764,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11629491 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.16666667 = coord(2/12)

Abstract

Patents sometimes cite webpages either as general background to the problem being addressed or to identify prior publications that limit the scope of the patent granted. Counts of the number of patents citing an organization's website may therefore provide an indicator of its technological capacity or relevance. This article introduces methods to extract URL citations from patents and evaluates the usefulness of counts of patent web citations as a technology indicator. An analysis of patents citing 200 US universities or 177 UK universities found computer science and engineering departments to be frequently cited, as well as research-related webpages, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, or the Internet Archive. Overall, however, patent URL citations seem to be frequent enough to be useful for ranking major US and the top few UK universities if popular hosted subdomains are filtered out, but the hit count estimates on the first search engine results page should not be relied upon for accuracy.

0.008009315 = product of:
  0.096111774 = sum of:
    0.096111774 = weight(_text_:filter in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096111774 = score(doc=3317,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24899386 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.38600057 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.987357 = idf(docFreq=110, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Citations from patents to scientific publications provide useful evidence about the commercial impact of academic research, but automatically searchable databases are needed to exploit this connection for large-scale patent citation evaluations. Google covers multiple different international patent office databases but does not index patent citations or allow automatic searches. In response, this article introduces a semiautomatic indirect method via Bing to extract and filter patent citations from Google to academic papers with an overall precision of 98%. The method was evaluated with 322,192 science and engineering Scopus articles from every second year for the period 1996-2012. Although manual Google Patent searches give more results, especially for articles with many patent citations, the difference is not large enough to be a major problem. Within Biomedical Engineering, Biotechnology, and Pharmacology & Pharmaceutics, 7% to 10% of Scopus articles had at least one patent citation but other fields had far fewer, so patent citation analysis is only relevant for a minority of publications. Low but positive correlations between Google Patent citations and Scopus citations across all fields suggest that traditional citation counts cannot substitute for patent citations when evaluating research.

0.0038646206 = product of:
  0.046375446 = sum of:
    0.046375446 = weight(_text_:wide in 2768) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046375446 = score(doc=2768,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2768, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2768)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Although citation counts are often used to evaluate the research impact of academic publications, they are problematic for books that aim for educational or cultural impact. To fill this gap, this article assesses whether a number of simple metrics derived from Amazon.com reviews of academic books could provide evidence of their impact. Based on a set of 2,739 academic monographs from 2008 and a set of 1,305 best-selling books in 15 Amazon.com academic subject categories, the existence of significant but low or moderate correlations between citations and numbers of reviews, combined with other evidence, suggests that online book reviews tend to reflect the wider popularity of a book rather than its academic impact, although there are substantial disciplinary differences. Metrics based on online reviews are therefore recommended for the evaluation of books that aim at a wide audience inside or outside academia when it is important to capture the broader impacts of educational or cultural activities and when they cannot be manipulated in advance of the evaluation.

0.0034274952 = product of:
  0.041129943 = sum of:
    0.041129943 = weight(_text_:world in 3760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041129943 = score(doc=3760,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13696888 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 3760, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3760)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Although news stories target the general public and are sometimes inaccurate, they can serve as sources of real-world information for researchers. This article investigates the extent to which academics exploit journalism using content and citation analyses of online BBC News stories cited by Scopus articles. A total of 27,234 Scopus-indexed publications have cited at least one BBC News story, with a steady annual increase. Citations from the arts and humanities (2.8% of publications in 2015) and social sciences (1.5%) were more likely than citations from medicine (0.1%) and science (<0.1%). Surprisingly, half of the sampled Scopus-cited science and technology (53%) and medicine and health (47%) stories were based on academic research, rather than otherwise unpublished information, suggesting that researchers have chosen a lower-quality secondary source for their citations. Nevertheless, the BBC News stories that were most frequently cited by Scopus, Google Books, and Wikipedia introduced new information from many different topics, including politics, business, economics, statistics, and reports about events. Thus, news stories are mediating real-world knowledge into the academic domain, a potential cause for concern.

0.0032205172 = product of:
  0.038646206 = sum of:
    0.038646206 = weight(_text_:wide in 382) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038646206 = score(doc=382,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1578897 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035634913 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 382, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=382)
  0.083333336 = coord(1/12)

Abstract

Although there is some evidence that online videos are increasingly used by academics for informal scholarly communication and teaching, the extent to which they are used in published academic research is unknown. This article explores the extent to which YouTube videos are cited in academic publications and whether there are significant broad disciplinary differences in this practice. To investigate, we extracted the URL citations to YouTube videos from academic publications indexed by Scopus. A total of 1,808 Scopus publications cited at least one YouTube video, and there was a steady upward growth in citing online videos within scholarly publications from 2006 to 2011, with YouTube citations being most common within arts and humanities (0.3%) and the social sciences (0.2%). A content analysis of 551 YouTube videos cited by research articles indicated that in science (78%) and in medicine and health sciences (77%), over three fourths of the cited videos had either direct scientific (e.g., laboratory experiments) or scientific-related contents (e.g., academic lectures or education) whereas in the arts and humanities, about 80% of the YouTube videos had art, culture, or history themes, and in the social sciences, about 63% of the videos were related to news, politics, advertisements, and documentaries. This shows both the disciplinary differences and the wide variety of innovative research communication uses found for videos within the different subject areas.