IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v114y2018i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2613-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems

Author

Listed:
  • Shu-Hao Chang

    (National Applied Research Laboratories)

Abstract

Methods to link academic research achievements with innovative industries have gained considerable awareness worldwide in recent years. Subsequently, responding to industries’ demand to reinforce the linkage between scientific research and industries is an issue awaiting urgent resolution for the government. Previous scientific pertaining to the linkage between scientific fields and (academic papers) technological fields (technology patents) primarily focus on non-patent research or university–industry collaboration. However, these studies failed to highlight the type of linkages between science and technological fields. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to identify the core scientific fields in different technological fields. In addition to the proposed network maps linking scientific and technological fields, this study also identified the core scientific fields for patent development, including materials science, multidisciplinary; engineering, chemical; physics, applied; nanoscience and nanotechnology; and chemistry, physical. Due to the scarcity of research pertaining to the linkage of scientific fields and technological fields, the government, research and development units, and universities lack a framework for linking fundamental scientific research with the development of industry technologies. Therefore, in this study, we used an author–inventor network to analyze this research topic, expecting that the results can serve as a reference for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2613-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6?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. 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.
    2. Hiroyuki Okamuro & Junichi Nishimura, 2013. "Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university-industry research collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 273-301, June.
    3. Hochull Choe & Duk Hee Lee, 2017. "The structure and change of the research collaboration network in Korea (2000–2011): network analysis of joint patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 917-939, May.
    4. J Calvert & P Patel, 2003. "University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 85-96, April.
    5. Anja Schoen & Dominik Heinisch & Guido Buenstorf, 2014. "Playing the ‘Name Game’ to identify academic patents in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 527-545, October.
    6. Branco Ponomariov, 2013. "Government-sponsored university-industry collaboration and the production of nanotechnology patents in US universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 749-767, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Edward F. Sherry & David J. Teece, 2008. "Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 8, pages 151-163, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Huei-Ru Dong & Dar-Zen Chen, 2013. "The unbalanced performance and regional differences in scientific and technological collaboration in the field of solar cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 423-438, January.
    10. Grupp, Hariolf & Mogee, Mary Ellen, 2004. "Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1373-1384, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Geuna, Aldo & Rossi, Federica, 2013. "Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 50-62.
    13. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Bobby Swar & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2013. "An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and Triple helix approach," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2366-2378, November.
    16. Markus Perkmann & Kathryn Walsh, 2009. "The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(6), pages 1033-1065, December.
    17. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    18. Lihua Zhai & Yuntao Pan & Yu Guo & Zheng Ma & Fei Bi, 2014. "International comparative study on nanofiltration membrane technology based on relevant publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1361-1374, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Loet Leydesdorff & Floortje Alkemade & Gaston Heimeriks & Rinke Hoekstra, 2015. "Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: geographic and technological perspectives on “photovoltaic cells”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 629-651, January.
    21. Van Looy, Bart & Callaert, Julie & Debackere, Koenraad, 2006. "Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 596-608, May.
    22. Hyun Woo Park & Jay Kang, 2009. "Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 811-820, December.
    23. Albino, Vito & Ardito, Lorenzo & Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2014. "Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 836-854.
    24. Gunter Festel, 2013. "Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 454-470, August.
    25. Chien-Lung Hsu & Chun-Hao Chiang, 2015. "The financial crisis research: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 161-177, October.
    26. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    27. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    28. Xuefeng Wang & Zhinan Wang & Ying Huang & Yun Chen & Yi Zhang & Huichao Ren & Rongrong Li & Jinhui Pang, 2017. "Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 2023-2039, June.
    29. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    30. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    31. Adèle Paul-Hus & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas, 2016. "Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 167-182, July.
    32. Bobby Swar & Gohar Feroz Khan, 2013. "An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and Triple helix approach," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2366-2378, November.
    33. 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.
    34. Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Carley & Ismael Rafols, 2013. "Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 589-593, February.
    35. Scott D. Bass & Lukasz A. Kurgan, 2010. "Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 217-241, February.
    36. Åstebro, Thomas & Bazzazian, Navid & Braguinsky, Serguey, 2012. "Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 663-677.
    37. Bart Looy & Tom Magerman & Koenraad Debackere, 2007. "Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 441-458, February.
    38. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    39. William B. Bonvillian, 2014. "The new model innovation agencies: An overview," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 425-437.
    40. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Hsiao-Wen Yang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2015. "Industry–academia collaboration in fuel cells: a perspective from paper and patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1301-1318, November.
    41. Basberg, Bjorn L., 1987. "Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 131-141, August.
    42. Mueller, Simon C. & Sandner, Philipp G. & Welpe, Isabell M., 2015. "Monitoring innovation in electrochemical energy storage technologies: A patent-based approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 537-544.
    43. Yonghan Ju & So Young Sohn, 2015. "Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 389-410, January.
    44. 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.
    45. Guifeng Liu, 2013. "Visualization of patents and papers in terahertz technology: a comparative study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1037-1056, March.
    46. Wong, Chan-Yuan & Fatimah Mohamad, Zeeda & Keng, Zi-Xiang & Ariff Azizan, Suzana, 2014. "Examining the patterns of innovation in low carbon energy science and technology: Publications and patents of Asian emerging economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 789-802.
    47. Mei Ho & John Liu & Wen-Min Lu & Chien-Cheng Huang, 2014. "A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 247-275, April.
    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. Liu Li & Chaoying Tang, 2020. "How Does Inter-Organizational Cooperation Impact Organizations’ Scientific Knowledge Generation? Evidence from the Biomass Energy Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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. Chang, Shu-Hao, 2017. "The technology networks and development trends of university-industry collaborative patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 107-113.
    2. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.
    3. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Hsiao-Wen Yang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2015. "Industry–academia collaboration in fuel cells: a perspective from paper and patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1301-1318, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    10. Yuandi Wang & Die Hu & Weiping Li & Yiwei Li & Qiang Li, 2015. "Collaboration strategies and effects on university research: evidence from Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 725-749, May.
    11. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    12. Malwina Mejer, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Scientists and their Publication Performance. An Insight from Belgium," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2011-017, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    14. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.
    15. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    16. Jielan Ding & Per Ahlgren & Liying Yang & Ting Yue, 2018. "Disciplinary structures in Nature, Science and PNAS: journal and country levels," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1817-1852, September.
    17. 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).
    18. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.
    19. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz & Zhou, Ping, 2016. "Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 902-918.

    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:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2613-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.