The importance of technology and R&D expenditures in the visibility of the firms on the web: An exploratory study

Cybermetrics

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-6

  Martínez Ruiz, Alba ^a,b   Thelwall, Michael ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE LA SANTÍSIMA CONCEPCIÓN   (Chile)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Link analysis; Patent indicators; Size effect; Technology importance; Web visibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958090348     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11375019     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B. & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550-560.
2. Axtell, R. (2001). Zipf distribution of U.S. firm sizes, Science, 293, 1818-1820.
3. Baeza-Yates, R., Castillo, C. & López, V. (2005). Characteristics of the Web of Spain, Cybermetrics International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 9(1), 3.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. & Peritz, B. (2004). Evolution, continuity and disappearance of documents on a specific topic on the Web: A longitudinal study of informetrics, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(11), 980-990.
5. Bar-Ilan, J. (2004a). A microscopic link analysis of academic institutions within a country: The case of Israel, Scientometrics, 59(3), 391-403.
6. Bar-IIan, J. (2005). What do we know about links and linking? A framework for studying links in academic environments, Information Processing and Management, 41, 973-986.
7. Bayer, A., Smart, J. & McLaughlin, G. (1990). Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 444-452.
8. Björneborn, L. & Ingwersen, P. (2001). Perspectives of Webometrics, Scientometrics, 50(1), 65-82.
9. Bose R. (2008). Competitive intelligence process and tools for intelligence analysis, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(3-4), 510-528.
10. Bucklin, R., Lattin J., Ansari A., Gupta S., Bell D., Coupey E., Little J., Mela C., Montgomery A. & Steckel J. (2002). Choice and the Internet: From clickstream to research stream, Marketing Letters, 13(3), 245-258.
11. Cohen, J. (1992). A power premier, Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
12. Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., Hascic, I., Johnstone, N. & Ménière, Y. (2009). Invention and transfer of climate change mitigation technologies on a global scale: A study drawing on patent data, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper 82.2009.
13. Garfield, E. (1984). Patent citations indexing and the notions of novelty, similarity and relevance, Essays of an Information Scientist, 7, 536-542.
14. Haas, S. & Grams, E. (1998). Page and link classifications: Connecting diverse resources, Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Digital libraries, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 99-107.
15. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights, Research Policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
16. Harhoff, D. & Reitzig, M. (2004). Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants: The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(4), 443-480.
17. Ingwersen, P. (1998). The calculation of web impact factors, Journal of Documentation, 54(2), 236-243.
18. Johnstone, N. & Hascic, I. (2007). Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Empirical Evidence based on Patent Counts, OECD, Paris.
19. Katz, J. & Cothey, V. (2006). Web indicators for complex innovation systems, Research Evaluation, 15(2), 85-95.
20. Kim, H. (2000). Motivations for hyperlinking in scholarly electronic articles: A qualitative study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(10), 887-899.
21. Lanjouw, J. & Schankerman, M. (2001). Characteristics of patent litigation: A window on competition, Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 129-151.
22. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis, Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319-333.
23. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations, Scientometrics, 49(1), 93-123.
24. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness, Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17-27.
25. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science, Research Policy, 26, 317-330.
26. Oppenheim C. (2000). Do patent citations count?, in: B. Cronin & H.B. Atkins (eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield, Information Today, Metford, NJ, 405-432.
27. Payne, N. & Thelwall, M. (2004). A statistical analysis of UK academic web links, Cybermetrics International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 8(1), 2.
28. Payne, N. & Thelwall, M. (2005). Mathematical models for academic webs: Linear relationship or non-linear power law, Information Processing and Management, 41, 1495-1510.
29. Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes: Validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales, Research Policy, 33(6-7), 939-957.
30. Smith, A. (1999). A tale of two Web spaces: Comparing sites using Web impact factors, Journal of Documentation, 55(5), 577-592.
31. Thelwall, M. (2001). Extracting macroscopic information from Web links, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(13), 1157-1168.
32. Thelwall, M. (2002). Conceptualizing documentation on the Web: An evaluation of different heuristic-based models for counting links between university web sites, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12): 995-1005.
33. Thelwall, M. (2002a). A comparison of sources of links for academic web impact factor calculations, Journal of Documentation, 58(1), 60-72.
34. Thelwall, M. & Price, L. (2003). Disciplinary differences in academic web presence: A statistical study of the UK, Libri, 53, 242-253.
35. Thelwall, M., Vaughan, L., Cothey, V., Li, X. & Smith, A. (2003a). Which academic subjects have most online impact? A pilot study and a new classification process, Online Information Review, 27(5), 333-343.
36. Thelwall, M. & Wilkinson, D. (2003b). Three target document range metrics for university Web sites, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 490-497.
37. Thelwall, M. (2004). Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical framework, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 60-68.
38. Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2004a). Do better scholars' web publications have significantly higher online impact?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(2), 149-159.
39. Thelwall, M., Vaughan, L. & Björneborn, L. (2005). Webometrics, International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics, 39, 81-135.
40. Thelwall, M., (2008). A generic lexical URL segmentation framework for counting links, colinks or URLs, Library & Information Science Research, 30, 94-101.
41. Tong, X. & Frame J. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data, Research Policy, 23(2), 133-141.
42. Vaughan, L. & Hysen, K. (2002). Relationship between links to journal Web sites and impact factors, Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 54(6), 356-361.
43. Vaughan L. & Thelwall, M. (2003). Scholarly use of the web: What are the key inducers of links to journal web sites?, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(1), 29-39.
44. Vaughan, L. (2004). Exploring website features for business information, Scientometrics, 61(3), 467-477.
45. Vaughan, L. & Wu, G. (2004). Links to commercial websites as a source of business information, Scientometrics, 60(3), 487-496.
46. Vaughan, L. & You, J. (2006). Comparing business competition positions based on Web co-link data: The global market vs. the Chinese market, Scientometrics 68(3), 611-628.
47. Vaughan, L., Kipp, M. & Gao, Y. (2007). Why are Websites co-linked? The case of Canadian universities, Scientometrics, 72(1), 81-92.
48. Vaughan, L. & You, J. (2008). Content assisted web co-link analysis for competitive intelligence, Scientometrics, 77(3), 433-444.