Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Patent citation analysis with Google (2017) 0.02
```
0.01777378 = product of:
  0.08886889 = sum of:
    0.08886889 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08886889 = score(doc=3317,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.41972876 = fieldWeight in 3317, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3317)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.
Orduna-Malea, E.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: Web citations in patents : evidence of technological impact? (2017) 0.02
```
0.01508155 = product of:
  0.07540775 = sum of:
    0.07540775 = weight(_text_:engineering in 3764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07540775 = score(doc=3764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.35615164 = fieldWeight in 3764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3764)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
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.
Mohammadi, E.; Thelwall, M.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V.: Who reads research articles? : an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories (2015) 0.01
```
0.01256796 = product of:
  0.0628398 = sum of:
    0.0628398 = weight(_text_:engineering in 2162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0628398 = score(doc=2162,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21172935 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03940963 = queryNorm
        0.29679304 = fieldWeight in 2162, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.372528 = idf(docFreq=557, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2162)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
```
Abstract

Little detailed information is known about who reads research articles and the contexts in which research articles are read. Using data about people who register in Mendeley as readers of articles, this article explores different types of users of Clinical Medicine, Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles inside and outside academia. The majority of readers for all disciplines were PhD students, postgraduates, and postdocs but other types of academics were also represented. In addition, many Clinical Medicine articles were read by medical professionals. The highest correlations between citations and Mendeley readership counts were found for types of users who often authored academic articles, except for associate professors in some sub-disciplines. This suggests that Mendeley readership can reflect usage similar to traditional citation impact if the data are restricted to readers who are also authors without the delay of impact measured by citation counts. At the same time, Mendeley statistics can also reveal the hidden impact of some research articles, such as educational value for nonauthor users inside academia or the impact of research articles on practice for readers outside academia.

Maflahi, N.; Thelwall, M.: When are readership counts as useful as citation counts? : Scopus versus Mendeley for LIS journals (2016) 0.00

0.0021551717 = product of:
  0.010775859 = sum of:
    0.010775859 = product of:
      0.032327574 = sum of:
        0.032327574 = weight(_text_:29 in 2495) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032327574 = score(doc=2495,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2495, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2495)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 27.12.2015 11:29:37

Thelwall, M.; Maflahi, N.: Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research (2016) 0.00

0.0021357841 = product of:
  0.010678921 = sum of:
    0.010678921 = product of:
      0.032036763 = sum of:
        0.032036763 = weight(_text_:22 in 2856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032036763 = score(doc=2856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 19. 3.2016 12:22:00

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.: Mendeley readership counts : an investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences (2016) 0.00

0.0021357841 = product of:
  0.010678921 = sum of:
    0.010678921 = product of:
      0.032036763 = sum of:
        0.032036763 = weight(_text_:22 in 3211) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032036763 = score(doc=3211,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3211, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3211)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 16.11.2016 11:07:22

Didegah, F.; Thelwall, M.: Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks (2018) 0.00

0.0021357841 = product of:
  0.010678921 = sum of:
    0.010678921 = product of:
      0.032036763 = sum of:
        0.032036763 = weight(_text_:22 in 4291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032036763 = score(doc=4291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4291)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 28. 7.2018 10:00:22

Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: Are wikipedia citations important evidence of the impact of scholarly articles and books? (2017) 0.00

0.0017959764 = product of:
  0.008979882 = sum of:
    0.008979882 = product of:
      0.026939645 = sum of:
        0.026939645 = weight(_text_:29 in 3440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026939645 = score(doc=3440,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13863076 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3440, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3440)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 16.11.2017 13:29:45

Thelwall, M.; Sud, P.; Wilkinson, D.: Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions (2012) 0.00

0.0017798204 = product of:
  0.008899102 = sum of:
    0.008899102 = product of:
      0.026697304 = sum of:
        0.026697304 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026697304 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 6. 4.2012 18:16:22

Thelwall, M.: Are Mendeley reader counts high enough for research evaluations when articles are published? (2017) 0.00

0.0017798204 = product of:
  0.008899102 = sum of:
    0.008899102 = product of:
      0.026697304 = sum of:
        0.026697304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026697304 = score(doc=3806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13800581 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03940963 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3806, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date: 20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

Authors