论文部分内容阅读
[目的 /意义]比较Innography、WIPS和Patentics 3个专利检索系统的引文分析功能,旨在帮助用户识别满足自己需要的专利引文分析工具,同时提出进一步完善专利检索系统引文分析功能的建议。[方法 /过程]通过比较3个专利检索系统引文收录范围、引文检索方式、前引后引查找功能、引文类型区分功能、非专利文献查找功能、可视化呈现功能和引文检索准确度,发现3个专利检索系统都具备基础的引文分析功能,但各有不足,难以满足现实需求。[结果 /结论]Innography应加强数据清洗,WIPS需扩大引文收录范围,Patentics则要增强系统稳定性,三者在检索数据准确性方面都有待提高。
[Purpose / Significance] To compare the citation analysis capabilities of three patent search systems, Innography, WIPS and Patentics, to help users identify patent citation analysis tools that meet their own needs and to propose further refinements to the citation analysis capabilities of the patent search system. [Methods / Processes] By comparing the three citation retrieval system citation scope, citation retrieval method, citation before and after citation to find features, citation type distinguishing function, non-patent literature search function, visual presentation function and citation retrieval accuracy, found 3 Patent retrieval systems all have basic citation analysis functions, but each has its own shortcomings and it is difficult to meet the actual needs. [Result / Conclusion] Innography should strengthen the data cleaning, WIPS need to expand the citation scope, Patentics should enhance the system stability, and all three need to improve the retrieval accuracy.