Search (59 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Bornmann, L."
  1. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.: On the problems of dealing with bibliometric data (2014) 0.02 
    0.023019886 = product of:
  0.057549715 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
    0.038299847 = product of:
      0.076599695 = sum of:
        0.076599695 = weight(_text_:22 in 1239) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.076599695 = score(doc=1239,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1239, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1239)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    18. 3.2014 19:13:22
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.866-867
  2. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.: From P100 to P100' : a new citation-rank approach (2014) 0.02 
    0.015346591 = product of:
  0.038366478 = sum of:
    0.012833246 = weight(_text_:information in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012833246 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
    0.025533231 = product of:
      0.051066462 = sum of:
        0.051066462 = weight(_text_:22 in 1431) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051066462 = score(doc=1431,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1431, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1431)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:05:18
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.9, S.1939-1943
  3. Bornmann, L.: How to analyze percentile citation impact data meaningfully in bibliometrics : the statistical analysis of distributions, percentile rank classes, and top-cited papers (2013) 0.01 
    0.011509943 = product of:
  0.028774858 = sum of:
    0.009624934 = weight(_text_:information in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009624934 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 656, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=656)
    0.019149924 = product of:
      0.038299847 = sum of:
        0.038299847 = weight(_text_:22 in 656) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038299847 = score(doc=656,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 656, 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=656)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    22. 3.2013 19:44:17
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.3, S.587-595
  4. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.; Wagner, C.S.: ¬The relative influences of government funding and international collaboration on citation impact (2019) 0.01 
    0.011509943 = product of:
  0.028774858 = sum of:
    0.009624934 = weight(_text_:information in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009624934 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4681)
    0.019149924 = product of:
      0.038299847 = sum of:
        0.038299847 = weight(_text_:22 in 4681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038299847 = score(doc=4681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4681, 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=4681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Date
    8. 1.2019 18:22:45
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.2, S.198-201
  5. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor : normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science (2011) 0.01 
    0.010920546 = product of:
  0.027301364 = sum of:
    0.011343094 = weight(_text_:information in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011343094 = score(doc=4186,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4186, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4186)
    0.01595827 = product of:
      0.03191654 = sum of:
        0.03191654 = weight(_text_:22 in 4186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03191654 = score(doc=4186,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1649855 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047114085 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4186, 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=4186)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The Impact Factors (IFs) of the Institute for Scientific Information suffer from a number of drawbacks, among them the statistics-Why should one use the mean and not the median?-and the incomparability among fields of science because of systematic differences in citation behavior among fields. Can these drawbacks be counteracted by fractionally counting citation weights instead of using whole numbers in the numerators? (a) Fractional citation counts are normalized in terms of the citing sources and thus would take into account differences in citation behavior among fields of science. (b) Differences in the resulting distributions can be tested statistically for their significance at different levels of aggregation. (c) Fractional counting can be generalized to any document set including journals or groups of journals, and thus the significance of differences among both small and large sets can be tested. A list of fractionally counted IFs for 2008 is available online at http:www.leydesdorff.net/weighted_if/weighted_if.xls The between-group variance among the 13 fields of science identified in the U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators is no longer statistically significant after this normalization. Although citation behavior differs largely between disciplines, the reflection of these differences in fractionally counted citation distributions can not be used as a reliable instrument for the classification.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 12:51:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.217-229
  6. Bornmann, L.: Lässt sich die Qualität von Forschung messen? (2013) 0.01 
    0.005314728 = product of:
  0.02657364 = sum of:
    0.02657364 = weight(_text_:und in 928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02657364 = score(doc=928,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10442211 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 928, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=928)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Grundsätzlich können wir bei Bewertungen in der Wissenschaft zwischen einer 'qualitative' Form, der Bewertung einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit (z. B. eines Manuskripts oder Forschungsantrags) durch kompetente Peers, und einer 'quantitative' Form, der Bewertung von wissenschaftlicher Arbeit anhand bibliometrischer Indikatoren unterscheiden. Beide Formen der Bewertung sind nicht unumstritten. Die Kritiker des Peer Review sehen vor allem zwei Schwächen des Verfahrens: (1) Verschiedene Gutachter würden kaum in der Bewertung ein und derselben wissenschaftlichen Arbeit übereinstimmen. (2) Gutachterliche Empfehlungen würden systematische Urteilsverzerrungen aufweisen. Gegen die Verwendung von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für die Qualität einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit wird seit Jahren eine Vielzahl von Bedenken geäußert. Zitierhäufigkeiten seien keine 'objektiven' Messungen von wissenschaftlicher Qualität, sondern ein kritisierbares Messkonstrukt. So wird unter anderem kritisiert, dass wissenschaftliche Qualität ein komplexes Phänomen darstelle, das nicht auf einer eindimensionalen Skala (d. h. anhand von Zitierhäufigkeiten) gemessen werden könne. Es werden empirische Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Fairness des Peer Review Verfahrens sowie Forschungsergebnisse zur Güte von Zitierhäufigkeiten als Indikator für wissenschaftliche Qualität vorgestellt.
  7. Bornmann, L.: Nature's top 100 revisited (2015) 0.00 
    0.0045372373 = product of:
  0.022686187 = sum of:
    0.022686187 = weight(_text_:information in 2351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022686187 = score(doc=2351,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 2351, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2351)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Bezug: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2714. Vgl.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23554/abstract.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.10, S.2166
  8. Collins, H.; Bornmann, L.: On scientific misconduct (2014) 0.00 
    0.004491636 = product of:
  0.02245818 = sum of:
    0.02245818 = weight(_text_:information in 1247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02245818 = score(doc=1247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1247)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.5, S.1089-1090
  9. Bornmann, L.: Scientific peer review (2011) 0.00 
    0.004491636 = product of:
  0.02245818 = sum of:
    0.02245818 = weight(_text_:information in 1600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02245818 = score(doc=1600,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1600, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1600)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 45(2011) no.1, S.197-245
  10. Bornmann, L.; Leydesdorff, L.: Statistical tests and research assessments : a comment on Schneider (2012) (2013) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.6, S.1306-1308
  11. Bornmann, L.: On the function of university rankings (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.2, S.428-429
  12. Bornmann, L.: Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1206)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.3, S.647-648
  13. Bornmann, L.: ¬The reception of publications by scientists in the early days of modern science (2014) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 1509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=1509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1509)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.10, S.2160-2161
  14. Bornmann, L.; Bauer, J.; Haunschild, R.: Distribution of women and men among highly cited scientists (2015) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 2349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=2349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2349)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.12, S.2715-2716
  15. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: ¬The operationalization of "fields" as WoS subject categories (WCs) in evaluative bibliometrics : the cases of "library and information science" and "science & technology studies" (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 2779) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=2779,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2779, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2779)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Normalization of citation scores using reference sets based on Web of Science subject categories (WCs) has become an established ("best") practice in evaluative bibliometrics. For example, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings are, among other things, based on this operationalization. However, WCs were developed decades ago for the purpose of information retrieval and evolved incrementally with the database; the classification is machine-based and partially manually corrected. Using the WC "information science & library science" and the WCs attributed to journals in the field of "science and technology studies," we show that WCs do not provide sufficient analytical clarity to carry bibliometric normalization in evaluation practices because of "indexer effects." Can the compliance with "best practices" be replaced with an ambition to develop "best possible practices"? New research questions can then be envisaged.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.3, S.707-714
  16. Bornmann, L.: What do altmetrics counts mean? : a plea for content analyses (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 2858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=2858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 2858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2858)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.4, S.1016-1017
  17. Besselaar, P. van den; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Correct assumptions? (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=3020,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1779
  18. Leydesdorff, L.; Wagner, C,; Bornmann, L.: Replicability and the public/private divide (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038499737 = product of:
  0.019249868 = sum of:
    0.019249868 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019249868 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.7, S.1777-1778
  19. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Integrated impact indicators compared with impact factors : an alternative research design with policy implications (2011) 0.00 
    0.0035870012 = product of:
  0.017935006 = sum of:
    0.017935006 = weight(_text_:information in 4919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017935006 = score(doc=4919,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 4919, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4919)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    In bibliometrics, the association of "impact" with central-tendency statistics is mistaken. Impacts add up, and citation curves therefore should be integrated instead of averaged. For example, the journals MIS Quarterly and Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology differ by a factor of 2 in terms of their respective impact factors (IF), but the journal with the lower IF has the higher impact. Using percentile ranks (e.g., top-1%, top-10%, etc.), an Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) can be based on integration of the citation curves, but after normalization of the citation curves to the same scale. The results across document sets can be compared as percentages of the total impact of a reference set. Total number of citations, however, should not be used instead because the shape of the citation curves is then not appreciated. I3 can be applied to any document set and any citation window. The results of the integration (summation) are fully decomposable in terms of journals or institutional units such as nations, universities, and so on because percentile ranks are determined at the paper level. In this study, we first compare I3 with IFs for the journals in two Institute for Scientific Information subject categories ("Information Science & Library Science" and "Multidisciplinary Sciences"). The library and information science set is additionally decomposed in terms of nations. Policy implications of this possible paradigm shift in citation impact analysis are specified.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2133-2146
  20. Leydesdorff, L.; Bornmann, L.: Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps (2012) 0.00 
    0.003334175 = product of:
  0.016670875 = sum of:
    0.016670875 = weight(_text_:information in 288) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016670875 = score(doc=288,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08270773 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047114085 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 288, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=288)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A technique is developed using patent information available online (at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) for the generation of Google Maps. The overlays indicate both the quantity and the quality of patents at the city level. This information is relevant for research questions in technology analysis, innovation studies, and evolutionary economics, as well as economic geography. The resulting maps can also be relevant for technological innovation policies and research and development management, because the U.S. market can be considered the leading market for patenting and patent competition. In addition to the maps, the routines provide quantitative data about the patents for statistical analysis. The cities on the map are colored according to the results of significance tests. The overlays are explored for the Netherlands as a "national system of innovations" and further elaborated in two cases of emerging technologies: ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) and nanotechnology.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.7, S.1442-1458

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 58
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Themes