| Title |
Mapping patent classifications: portfolio and statistical analysis, and the comparison of strengths and weaknesses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2449-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Loet Leydesdorff, Dieter Franz Kogler, Bowen Yan |
| Abstract |
The Cooperative Patent Classifications (CPC) recently developed cooperatively by the European and US Patent Offices provide a new basis for mapping patents and portfolio analysis. CPC replaces International Patent Classifications (IPC) of the World Intellectual Property Organization. In this study, we update our routines previously based on IPC for CPC and use the occasion for rethinking various parameter choices. The new maps are significantly different from the previous ones, although this may not always be obvious on visual inspection. We provide nested maps online and a routine for generating portfolio overlays on the maps; a new tool is provided for "difference maps" between patent portfolios of organizations or firms. This is illustrated by comparing the portfolios of patents granted to two competing firms-Novartis and MSD-in 2016. Furthermore, the data is organized for the purpose of statistical analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 2 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Turkey | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 106 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 25% |
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Professor | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 18 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 19 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 13 | 12% |
| Engineering | 9 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 31 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,145,821
of 24,770,025 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#424
of 2,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,307
of 319,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#16
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,770,025 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.