IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v85y2010i2d10.1007_s11192-009-0154-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience

Author

Listed:
  • M. Meyer

    (University of Sussex
    KU Leuven
    KU Leuven)

  • K. Debackere

    (KU Leuven
    KU Leuven)

  • W. Glänzel

    (KU Leuven
    KU Leuven)

Abstract

There is a rich literature on how science and technology are related to each other. Patent citation analysis is amongst the most frequently used to tool to track the strengths of links. In this paper we explore the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Our observations indicate that patent-cited papers perform better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this way. More specifically, we found that articles cited in patents are more likely to be cited also by other papers. The share of highly cited papers is the most striking result. Instead of the average of 4% of all papers, 13.8% of the papers cited once or twice in patents fall into this category and even 23.5% of the papers more frequently cited in patents receive citation rates far above the standard. Our analyses further demonstrate the presence and the relevance of bandwagon effects driving the development of science and technology.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:85:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0154-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3
    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/s11192-009-0154-3?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. 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.
    4. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2005. "Reference-based publication networks with episodic memories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(3), pages 549-566, June.
    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. 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.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs & András Schubert & Koenraad Debackere, 2009. "Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 165-188, January.
    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. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    10. Bart Van Looy & Edwin Zimmermann & Reinhilde Veugelers & Arnold Verbeek & Johanna Mello & Koenraad Debackere, 2003. "Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 355-367, July.
    11. Francis Narin & Kimberly S Hamilton & Dominic Olivastro, 1995. "Linkage between agency-supported research and patented industrial technology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 183-187, December.
    12. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    13. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    14. Diana Hicks, 2000. "360 degree linkage analysis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 133-143, August.
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Wolfgang Glänzel & Katrin Hussinger, 2007. "Patent and publication activities of German professors: an empirical assessment of their co-activity," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 311-319, December.
    16. Bart Van Looy & Koenraad Debackere & Julie Callaert & Robert Tijssen & Thed van Leeuwen, 2006. "Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 295-310, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    19. Nicola Baldini, 2008. "Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 289-311, May.
    20. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    21. Debackere, Koenraad & Rappa, Michael A., 1994. "Institutional variations in problem choice and persistence among scientists in an emerging field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 425-441, July.
    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. Yuandi Wang & Xiongfeng Pan & Yantai Chen & Xin Gu, 2013. "Do references in transferred patent documents signal learning opportunities for the receiving firms?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 731-752, May.
    2. 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).
    3. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    4. Benatti, Alexandre & de Arruda, Henrique Ferraz & Silva, Filipi Nascimento & Comin, César Henrique & da Fontoura Costa, Luciano, 2023. "On the stability of citation networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 610(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    7. Xianwen Wang & Shenmeng Xu & Di Liu & Yongxia Liang, 2012. "The role of Chinese–American scientists in China–US scientific collaboration: a study in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 737-749, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Huang, Wei-Tzu & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2014. "Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 241-251.
    10. Ji-ping Gao & Kun Ding & Li Teng & Jie Pang, 2012. "Hybrid documents co-citation analysis: making sense of the interaction between science and technology in technology diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 459-471, November.
    11. Benatti, Alexandre & Ferraz de Arrruda, Henrique & Nascimento Silva, Filipi & da Fontoura Costa, Luciano, 2021. "Enriching and analyzing small citation networks: A case study on transistor’s history," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 573(C).
    12. Chunjuan Luan & Haiyan Hou & Yongtao Wang & Xianwen Wang, 2014. "Are significant inventions more diversified?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 459-470, August.
    13. Henrique F. Arruda & Cesar H. Comin & Luciano da F. Costa, 2018. "How integrated are theoretical and applied physics?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1113-1121, August.
    14. Wolfgang Glänzel & Ping Zhou, 2011. "Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 505-525, February.
    15. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Collaboration or funding: lessons from a study of nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 741-777, June.
    16. Jason Li-Ying & Yuandi Wang & Søren Salomo & Wim Vanhaverbeke, 2013. "Have Chinese firms learned from their prior technology in-licensing? An analysis based on patent citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 183-195, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Martin Meyer, 2007. "What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 779-810, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    5. 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).
    6. Landry, Réjean & Saïhi, Malek & Amara, Nabil & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2010. "Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1387-1403, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Ugo Finardi, 2010. "Temporal and spatial relations between patents and scientific journal articles: the case of nanotechnologies," CERIS Working Paper 201007, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    11. Wolfgang Glänzel & Ping Zhou, 2011. "Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 505-525, 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. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    17. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    18. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 457-472, January.
    19. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    20. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Liang Ran, 2021. "A deep learning framework to early identify emerging technologies in large-scale outlier patents: an empirical study of CNC machine tool," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 969-994, February.

    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:85:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0154-3. 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.