Measuring science–technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: an exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This article contributes to the growing study on the interactions between science and technology with China’s evidence in the field of nanotechnology, based on the database of United States Patent and Trademark Office. The analysis is focused during the period of 1991–2008, a rapid increasing period for the development of nanotechnology. Using the non-patent references cited by patents, we first investigate the science–technology connections in the context of Chinese nanotechnology, especially in institutional sectors and its application fields. Those patents, produced by academic researchers and directed towards basic scientific knowledge, generally cite more scientific references with a higher proportion of self-citations. It is interesting to find that patents contributed by collaborations between public organizations and corporations seldom contain scientific references. Following an interesting path on matching the data of publications and patents, we establish the author-inventor links in this emerging field. Author-inventors, who are co-active in publishing and patenting, are at the very top of the most prolific and highly cited researchers. Finally, we employ social network analysis to explore the characteristics of scientific and technological networks generated by co-authorship and co-invention data, to investigate the position and the role of patenting–publishing scientists in these research networks.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Intellectual Property and Patents
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Bai CL (2005) Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science 309(5731):61–6310.1126/science.1115172 ↗
2. Baldini N (2008) Negative effects of university patenting: myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics 75(2):289–31110.1007/s11192-007-1865-y ↗
3. Bassecoulard E, Zitt M (2004) Patents and publications: the lexical connection. In: Moed HF, Glänzel W, Schmoch U (eds) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 665–69410.1007/1-4020-2755-9_31 ↗
4. Bhattacharya S, Kretschmer H, Meyer M (2003) Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics 58(2):369–39010.1023/A:1026244828759 ↗
5. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell EG, Louis KS (1996) Relationships between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences—an industry survey. N Engl J Med 334:368–37310.1056/NEJM199602083340606 ↗
6. Bonaccorsi A, Thoma G (2007) Institutional complementarily and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Res Policy 36(6):813–83110.1016/j.respol.2007.02.009 ↗
7. Boyack KW, Klavans R (2008) Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names. J Informetr 2(3):173–18210.1016/j.joi.2008.03.001 ↗
8. Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321–32510.1007/BF02457417 ↗
9. Breschi S, Catalini C (2010) Tracing the links between science and technology: an exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Res Policy 39(1):14–2610.1016/j.respol.2009.11.004 ↗
10. Burt RS (1992) Structural holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge10.4159/9780674029095 ↗
11. Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Am J Sociol 110(2):349–39910.1086/421787 ↗
12. Calvert J, Patel P (2003) University-industry research collaborations in the UK: bibliometric trends. Sci Public Policy 30(2):85–9610.3152/147154303781780597 ↗
13. Carpenter MP, Narin F (1983) Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Inf 5(3):180–18510.1016/0172-2190(83)90139-4 ↗
14. Chang YC, Yang PY (2008) The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: a test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Manag 38(3):321–33410.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00513.x-i1 ↗
15. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–12310.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4 ↗
16. Gao X, Guan JC (2009) Networks of scientific journals: an exploration of Chinese patent data. Scientometrics 80(1):283–30210.1007/s11192-007-2013-4 ↗
17. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London
18. Glänzel W, Meyer M (2003) Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of reverse citation relations. Scientometrics 58(2):415–42810.1023/A:1026248929668 ↗
19. Glänzel W, Meyer M, Du Plessis M, Thijs B, Magerman T, Schlemmer B, Debackere K, Veugelers R (2003) Nanotechnology—analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven
20. Godin B (1995) Research and the practice of publication in industries. Res Policy 25(4):587–60610.1016/0048-7333(95)00859-4 ↗
21. Guan JC, He Y (2007) Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science–technology linkages. Scientometrics 72(3):403–42510.1007/s11192-007-1741-1 ↗
22. Guan JC, Ma N (2007) China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: a comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Res Policy 36(6):880–88610.1016/j.respol.2007.02.004 ↗
23. Guan JC, Wang GB (2010) A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor-authors and their non-inventing peers. Scientometrics 84(2):331–34310.1007/s11192-009-0140-9 ↗
24. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 849810.3386/w8498 ↗
25. Hassan M (2005) Small things and big changes in the developing world. Science 309(5731):65–6610.1126/science.1111138 ↗
26. Igami M, Okazaki T (2007) Capturing nanotechnology’s current state of development via analysis of patents. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2007/4, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD, Paris
27. Iversen EJ (2000) An excursion into the patent-bibliometrics of Norwegian patenting. Scientometrics 49(1):63–8010.1023/A:1005609224740 ↗
28. Kostoff RN (1997) Symposium overview: accelerating the conversion of science to technology. J Technol Transf 22(3):3–810.1007/BF02509157 ↗
29. Leydesdorff L (2004) The university-industry knowledge relationship: analyzing patents and the science base of technologies. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 55(11):991–100110.1002/asi.20045 ↗
30. Leydesdorff L, Zhou P (2007) Nanotechnology as a field of science: its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics 70(3):693–71310.1007/s11192-007-0308-0 ↗
31. Liu X, Zhang P, Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Larson C, Roco MC, Wang X (2009) Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. J Nanopart Res 11(8):1854–1866
32. Luwel M (1999) Is the science citation index US-biased? Scientometrics 46(3):549–56210.1007/BF02459611 ↗
33. Meyer M (2000) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res Policy 29(3):409–43410.1016/S0048-7333(99)00040-2 ↗
34. Meyer M (2003) Are academic patents an indicator of useful university research? Res Eval 12(1):17–2710.3152/147154403781776735 ↗
35. Meyer M (2006) Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Res Policy 35(10):1646–166210.1016/j.respol.2006.09.013 ↗
36. Mogoutov A, Kahane B (2007) Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: a scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Res Policy 36(6):893–90310.1016/j.respol.2007.02.005 ↗
37. Murray F, Stern S (2007) Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? J Econ Behav Organ 63(4):648–68710.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.017 ↗
38. Narin F, Noma E (1985) Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics 7(3–6):369–38110.1007/BF02017155 ↗
39. Narin F, Hamilton KS, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Res Policy 26(3):317–33010.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9 ↗
40. Noyons ECM, Van Raan AFJ, Grupp H, Schmoch U (1994) Exploring the science and technology interface—inventor author relations in laser medicine research. Res Policy 23(4):443–45710.1016/0048-7333(94)90007-8 ↗
41. Noyons ECM, Buter RK, van Raan AFJ, Schmoch U, Heinze T, Hinze S, Rangnow R (2004) Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe: nanoscience and nanotechnology. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS). Leiden University, Leiden
42. Palmberg C, Dernis H, Miguet C (2009) Nanotechnology: An overview based on indicators and statistics. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2009/7, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/22314704384410.1787/223147043844 ↗
43. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–72810.1007/s11051-007-9266-y ↗
44. Rojo R, Gómez I (2006) Analysis of the Spanish scientific and technological output in the ICT sector. Scientometrics 66(1):101–12110.1007/s11192-006-0008-1 ↗
45. Schmoch U (1997) Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics 38(1):103–11610.1007/BF02461126 ↗
46. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425–46510.1023/B:SCIE.0000018542.71314.38 ↗
47. Tijssen RJW (2004) Measuring and evaluating science–technology connections and interactions towards international statistics. In: Moed HF, Glänzel W, Schmoch U (eds) Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 695–71510.1007/1-4020-2755-9_32 ↗
48. Tijssen RJW, Buter RK, Van Leeuwen ThN (2000) Technological relevance of science: an assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics 47(2): 389–412
49. Van Looy B, Debackere K, Callaert J, Tijssen R, Van Leeuwen T (2006) Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: an exploration of emerging industrial relevant. Scientometrics 66(2):295–31010.1007/s11192-006-0030-3 ↗
50. 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):399–42010.1023/A:1016034516731 ↗
51. Wang GB, Guan JC (2010) The role of patenting activity for scientific research: a study of academic inventors from China’s nanotechnology. J Informetr 4(3):338–35010.1016/j.joi.2010.02.002 ↗
52. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511815478 ↗
53. Zitt M, Bassecoulard E (2006) Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inform Process Manag 42(6):1513–153110.1016/j.ipm.2006.03.016 ↗