IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csc/cerisp/201007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Temporal and spatial relations between patents and scientific journal articles: the case of nanotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Ugo Finardi

    (Università di Torino - Dipartimento di Chimica I.F.M. and NIS - Centre of Excellence)

Abstract

Patent citations have been widely used in order to study inter-technology and science-technology relations. The present work aims at: i) exploring time relations and distance between technical/innovative activities and scientific knowledge, using journal articles citations in patents as a proxy; ii) exploring the origin of the knowledge cited in patents. The study is performed on a field particularly relevant both on the scientific and technological side, that of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. In parallel a field less on the edge of research (polymers) is studied in order to compare results and shed better light on what is happening in nanotech. Studied items show a common behaviour and a higher rate of citations and a shorter time lag between citing patents and cited articles for nanotechnologies rather than for polymers. Knowledge cited in patents shows in many cases a common origin with that of citing documents. Conclusions on these behaviours are drawn.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:csc:cerisp:201007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.byterfly.eu/islandora/object/librib:348345
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Margherita Balconi & Andrea Pozzali & Riccardo Viale, 2007. "The “codification debate” revisited: a conceptual framework to analyze the role of tacit knowledge in economics," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(5), pages 823-849, October.
    3. Criscuolo, Paola & Verspagen, Bart, 2008. "Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs. examiner citations in European patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1892-1908, December.
    4. Avenel, E. & Favier, A.V. & Ma, S. & Mangematin, V. & Rieu, C., 2007. "Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 864-870, July.
    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. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Jeannette Colyvas & Michael Crow & Annetine Gelijns & Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson & Nathan Rosenberg & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2002. "How Do University Inventions Get Into Practice?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 61-72, January.
    9. Mario Coccia & Ugo Finardi & Diego Margon, 2010. "Research trends in nanotechnology studies across geo-economic areas," CERIS Working Paper 201005, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    10. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    11. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    12. Bj–rn Johnson & Edward Lorenz & Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2002. "Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(2), pages 245-262.
    13. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. E. Bacchiocchi & F. Montobbio, 2009. "Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 169-181, April.
    17. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ugo Finardi, 2011. "Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 37-50, October.
    2. Ugo Finardi, 2013. "The technological paradigm of Nanosciences and Technologies: a study of science-technology time and space relations," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 39(2), pages 11-29, Julio-Dic.
    3. 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).
    4. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
    8. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Yang, Hsiao-Wen & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Increasing science and technology linkage in fuel cells: A cross citation analysis of papers and patents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 237-249.
    9. Chen, Lixin, 2017. "Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 63-79.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Wang, Jean J. & Ye, Fred Y., 2021. "Probing into the interactions between papers and patents of new CRISPR/CAS9 technology: A citation comparison," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    13. 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.
    14. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    18. Andrea Bonaccorsi, 2011. "A Functional Theory of Technology and Technological Change," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent-research relations; Patent; Journal Article; Nanoscience; Nanotechnologies; Polymers; Technological trajectories; Data mining; Innovation; Knowledge diffusion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:csc:cerisp:201007. 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: Anna Perin or Giancarlo Birello (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cerisit.html .

    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.