| Title |
Do younger Sleeping Beauties prefer a technological prince?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-017-2603-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony F. J. van Raan, Jos J. Winnink |
| Abstract |
In this paper we investigate recent Sleeping Beauties cited in patents (SB-SNPRs). We find that the increasing trend of the relative number of SBs stopped around 1998. Moreover, we find that the time lag between the publication year of the SB-SNPRs and their first citation in a patent is becoming shorter in recent years. Our observations also suggest that, on average, in the more recent years SBs are awakened increasingly earlier by a 'technological prince' rather than by a 'scientific prince'. These observations suggest that SBs with technological importance are 'discovered' earlier in an application-oriented context. Then, because of this earlier recognized technological relevance, papers may be cited also earlier in a scientific context. Thus early recognized technological relevance may 'prevent' papers to become an SB. The scientific impact of Sleeping Beauties is generally not necessarily related to the technological importance of the SBs, as far as measured with number and impact of the citing patents. The analysis of the occurrence of inventor-author relations as well as the citation years of inventor-author patents suggest that the scientific awakening of Sleeping Beauties only rarely occurs by inventor-author self-citation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 30% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,169,690
of 24,862,965 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#430
of 2,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,771
of 450,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#10
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,862,965 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 2,854 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 84% 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 450,932 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.