IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v2y2008i3p173-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names

Author

Listed:
  • Boyack, Kevin W.
  • Klavans, Richard

Abstract

The relationship between science and technology has been extensively studied from both theoretical and quantitative perspectives. Quantitative studies typically use patents as proxy for technology and scientific papers as proxy for science, and investigate the relationship between the two. Most such studies have been limited to a single discipline or country. In this paper, we investigate science–technology interaction over a broad range of science and technology by identifying and validating a set of 18,251 inventor–authors through matching of rare names obtained from paper and patent data. These inventor–authors are listed as inventors on nearly 56,000 US patents between 2002 and 2006. Analysis of the distribution of these patents over classes shows that this 6.7% sample is a suitable sample for further analysis. In addition, a map of 290 IPC patent subclasses was created, showing the relationship between patent classes and industries as well as the distribution of patent classes with high science orientation and low science orientation.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:2:y:2008:i:3:p:173-182
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2008.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157708000151
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2008.03.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    5. Wolfgang Glänzel & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 415-428, October.
    6. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    7. Narin, Francis & Olivastro, Dominic, 1992. "Status report: Linkage between technology and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 237-249, June.
    8. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    9. Martin Meyer, 2003. "Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 17-27, April.
    10. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2006. "Identifying a better measure of relatedness for mapping science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 251-263, January.
    11. Noyons, E. C. M. & van Raan, A. F. J. & Grupp, H. & Schmoch, U., 1994. "Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 443-457, July.
    12. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    13. Diana Hicks & Hiroyuki Tomizawa & Yoshiko Saitoh & Shinichi Kobayashi, 2004. "Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 76-86, August.
    14. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis, 1983. "Validation study: Patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 180-185.
    15. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2006. "Quantitative evaluation of large maps of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 475-499, September.
    16. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans & Katy Börner, 2005. "Mapping the backbone of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 64(3), pages 351-374, August.
    17. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    18. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    19. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xu, Haiyun & Yue, Zenghui & Pang, Hongshen & Elahi, Ehsan & Li, Jing & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Integrative model for discovering linked topics in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Cathelijn J F Waaijer & Benoît Macaluso & Cassidy R Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2016. "Stability and Longevity in the Publication Careers of U.S. Doctorate Recipients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Shu-Hao Chang, 2018. "A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 951-970, March.
    4. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    5. Mariia Shkolnykova, 2021. "Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-54, April.
    6. Loet Leydesdorff & Duncan Kushnir & Ismael Rafols, 2014. "Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1583-1599, March.
    7. Sung, Hui-Yun & Wang, Chun-Chieh & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 488-498.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann, 2012. "Mapping (USPTO) patent data using overlays to Google Maps," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1442-1458, July.
    9. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    10. Xian Li & Dangzhi Zhao & Xiaojun Hu, 2020. "Gatekeepers in knowledge transfer between science and technology: an exploratory study in the area of gene editing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1261-1277, August.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols, 2012. "Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject Headings of PubMed," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2239-2253, November.
    12. Quirin, Arnaud & Cordón, Oscar & Vargas-Quesada, Benjamín & de Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2010. "Graph-based data mining: A new tool for the analysis and comparison of scientific domains represented as scientograms," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 291-312.
    13. Kevin W. Boyack, 2017. "Thesaurus-based methods for mapping contents of publication sets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 1141-1155, May.
    14. Zhang, Yi & Shang, Lining & Huang, Lu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Guangquan & Lu, Jie & Zhu, Donghua, 2016. "A hybrid similarity measure method for patent portfolio analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1108-1130.
    15. Xiaoling Sun & Kun Ding, 2018. "Identifying and tracking scientific and technological knowledge memes from citation networks of publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1735-1748, September.
    16. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    17. Hain, Daniel S. & Jurowetzki, Roman & Buchmann, Tobias & Wolf, Patrick, 2022. "A text-embedding-based approach to measuring patent-to-patent technological similarity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    18. Ba, Zhichao & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "A novel approach to measuring science-technology linkage: From the perspective of knowledge network coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    19. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    20. Byungun Yoon & Sungjoo Lee & Gwanghee Lee, 2010. "Development and application of a keyword-based knowledge map for effective R&D planning," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 803-820, December.
    21. Anthony F. J. Raan, 2017. "Sleeping beauties cited in patents: Is there also a dormitory of inventions?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1123-1156, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    2. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    3. Shen, Yung-Chi & Wang, Ming-Yeu & Yang, Ya-Chu, 2020. "Discovering the potential opportunities of scientific advancement and technological innovation: A case study of smart health monitoring technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Xu, Haiyun & Yue, Zenghui & Pang, Hongshen & Elahi, Ehsan & Li, Jing & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Integrative model for discovering linked topics in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    5. Mariia Shkolnykova, 2021. "Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-54, April.
    6. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    8. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    9. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    10. Ba, Zhichao & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "A novel approach to measuring science-technology linkage: From the perspective of knowledge network coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    11. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009. "Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
    12. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    13. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    14. Xu, Haiyun & Winnink, Jos & Yue, Zenghui & Liu, Ziqiang & Yuan, Guoting, 2020. "Topic-linked innovation paths in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    15. Dejian Yu & Zhaoping Yan, 2022. "Combining machine learning and main path analysis to identify research front: from the perspective of science-technology linkage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4251-4274, July.
    16. Kang, Inje & Yang, Jiseong & Lee, Wonjae & Seo, Eun-Yeong & Lee, Duk Hee, 2023. "Delineating development trends of nanotechnology in the semiconductor industry: Focusing on the relationship between science and technology by employing structural topic model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    17. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    18. Xia Gao & Jiancheng Guan, 2009. "Networks of scientific journals: An exploration of Chinese patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 283-302, July.
    19. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    20. Yu-Wei Chang & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Hsiao-Wen Yang, 2016. "Analysis of coactivity in the field of fuel cells at institutional and individual levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 143-158, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:2:y:2008:i:3:p:173-182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.