Patent citation analysis with Google

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 48-61

  Kousha, Kayvan ^a   Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

citation analysis; patents; webometrics

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

CITATION ANALYSIS; INTERNATIONAL PATENTS; PATENT CITATION ANALYSIS; PATENTS; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS; SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS; WEBOMETRICS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 85006817542     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23608     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alcácer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.
2. Alcácer, J., Gittelman, M., & Sampat, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38(2), 415–427.
3. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2012). Counting citations in the field of business and management: Why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93(3), 553–581.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.
5. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2010). On the robustness of Google Scholar against spam. Paper presented at the HT'10—Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 297–298.
6. Breschi, S., Trasconi, G., Catalini, C., Novella, L., Guatta, P., & Johnson, H. (2006). Highly cited patents, highly cited publications, and research networks. Investment in Research and Links with other Policies, European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/final_report_hcp.pdf
7. Brusoni, S., Criscuolo, P., & Geuna, A. (2005). The knowledge bases of the world's largest biopharmaceuticals groups: What do the patent citations to nonpatent literature reveal? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(5), 395–415.
8. Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of nonpatent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3–20.
9. Callaert, J., Grouwels, J., & van Looy, B. (2012). Delineating the scientific footprint in technology: Identifying scientific publications within nonpatent references. Scientometrics, 91(2), 383–398.
10. Callaert, J., Pellens, M., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1617–1629.
11. Cohen, W.M. (2010). Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. In B. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The Economics of Innovation (pp. 129–213). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
12. Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65–74.
13. Courtial, J.P., Callon, M., & Sigogneau, A. (1993). The use of patent titles for identifying the topics of invention and forecasting trends. Scientometrics, 26(2), 231–242.
14. Cronin, B. (2001). Bibliometrics and beyond: Some thoughts on web-based citation analysis. Journal of Information Science, 27(1), 1–7.
15. De Groote, S.L., & Raszewski, R. (2012). Coverage of Google scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 60(6), 391–400.
16. de Winter, J.C.F., Zadpoor, A.A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565.
17. Guan, J.C., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science—Technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.
18. Han, H., Xu, S., Zhu, L., Qiao, X., Gui, J., & Zhang, Z. (2014). Mining technical topic networks from Chinese patents. Paper presented at the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, p. 1292.
19. Harzing, A., & van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8(1), 61–73.
20. He, Z.L., & Deng, M. (2007). The evidence of systematic noise in nonpatent references: A study of New Zealand companies' patents. Scientometrics, 72(1), 149–166.
21. Huang, M., Huang, W., & Chen, D. (2014). Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 241–251.
22. Hung, W.C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 92(1), 63–73.
23. Jacsó, P. (2011). Google Scholar duped and deduped—The aura of “robometrics. Online Information Review, 35(1), 154–160.
24. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve Survey of Patentees. NBER Working Papers No. 7631. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w7631.pdf
25. Khabsa, M., & Giles, C.L. (2014). The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e93949.
26. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007a). Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(7), 1055–1065.
27. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2007b). How is science cited on the web? A classification of Google unique web citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1631–1644.
28. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of disciplinary research on teaching: An automatic analysis of online syllabuses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2060–2069.
29. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2009). Google Book Search: Citation analysis for social science and the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1537–1549.
30. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). An automatic method for extracting citations from Google Books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 309–320.
31. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2015). An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23542
32. Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Rezaie, S. (2011). Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147–2164.
33. Kulkarni, A.V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J.W. (2009). Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092–1096.
34. Lawson, M., Kemp, N., Lynch, M.F., & Chowdhury, G.G. (1996). Automatic extraction of citations from the text of English-language patents—An example of template mining. Journal of Information Science, 22(6), 423–436.
35. Lee, S., Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2009). An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach. Technovation, 29(6–7), 481–497.
36. Lemley, M.A., & Sampat, B. (2012). Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 817–827.
37. Leydesdorff, L. (2004). The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(11), 991–1001.
38. Li, R., Chambers, T., Ding, Y., Zhang, G., & Meng, L. (2014). Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1007–1017.
39. Liaw, Y., Chan, T., Fan, C., & Chiang, C. (2014). Can the technological impact of academic journals be evaluated? The practice of nonpatent reference (NPR) analysis. Scientometrics, 101, 17–37.
40. Lo, S. (2010). Scientific linkage of science research and technology development: A case of genetic engineering research. Scientometrics, 82(1), 109–120.
41. Lopez, P. (2010). Automatic extraction and resolution of bibliographical references in patent documents. In H. Cunningham, A. Hanbury, & S. Rüger (Eds.), Advances in Multidisciplinary Retrieval (Vol. 6107, pp. 120–135), Lecture notes in computer science. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
42. López-Cózar, E.D., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446–454.
43. Ma, Y., Sun, L., Wang, Z., & Yang, X. (2010). Computer aided system of screening and sorting in data processing for nonpatent literature. Paper presented at the ICCASM 2010—2010 International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling, Proceedings, 3, V3609–V3611.
44. Meho, L.I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.
45. Meyer, M. (2000a). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 49(1), 93–123.
46. Meyer, M. (2000b). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.
47. Meyer, M. (2003). Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness. Research Evaluation, 12, 17–27.
48. Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be “good science”? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.
49. Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis: A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185–201.
50. Nagaoka, S. (2007). Assessing the R&D management of a firm in terms of speed and science linkage: Evidence from the US patents. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 16(1), 129–156.
51. Nanba, H., Anzen, N., & Okumura, M. (2008). Automatic extraction of citation information in Japanese patent applications. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 9(2), 151–161.
52. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.
53. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21(3), 237–249.
54. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.
55. 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 (pp. 405–432), ASS Monograph Series. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
56. REF (2011). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. Retrieved from http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf
57. Roach, M., & Cohen, W.M. (2013). Lens or prism? Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows from public research. Management Science, 59(2), 504–525.
58. Sampat, B. (2004). Examining patent examination: An analysis of examiner and applicant generated prior art. National Bureau of Economic Research Summer Institute Presentation. Retrieved from http://www.stiy.com/MeasuringInnovation/Sampat.pdf
59. Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), 193–211.
60. Shirabe, M. (2014). Identifying SCI covered publications within nonpatent references in US utility patents. Scientometrics, 101(2), 999–1014.
61. Subramanian, A.M., & Soh, P. (2010). An empirical examination of the science-technology relationship in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3–4), 160–171.
62. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 529–541.
63. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2008). Online presentations as a source of scientific impact? An analysis of PowerPoint files citing academic journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(5), 805–815.
64. Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015). Guideline references and academic citations as evidence of the clinical value of health research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23432
65. Tijssen, R.J.W. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: Patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30(1), 35–54.
66. Tijssen, R.J.W., Buter, R.K., & van Leeuwen, T.N. (2000). Technological relevance of science: An assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47(2), 389–412. Retrieved from www.scopus.com
67. Tseng, Y., Lin, C., & Lin, Y. (2007). Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Information Processing and Management, 43(5), 1216–1247.
68. van Vianen, B.G., Moed, H.F., & van Raan, A.F.J. (1990). An exploration of the science base of recent technology. Research Policy, 19(1), 61–81.
69. Van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., & Debackere, K. (2003). Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains. Scientometrics, 57(3), 355–367.
70. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313–1322.
71. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2005). Web citation data for impact assessment: A comparison of four science disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1075–1087.
72. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Andries, P., Zimmermann, E., & Deleus, F. (2002). Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54(3), 399–420.
73. WIPO (2014). World Intellectual Property Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2014.pdf
74. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2004). A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 15(1), 37–50.