IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v18y2024i4s1751157724000774.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing patent in-text and front-page references to science

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Jian
  • Verberne, Suzan

Abstract

Patent references to science provide a paper trail of knowledge flow from science to innovation, and have attracted a lot of attention in recent years. However, we understand little about the differences between two types of patents references: front-page vs. in-text. While both types of references are becoming more accessible, we still lack a systematic understanding on how results are sensitive to which type of references are being analyzed in science and innovation studies. Using a dataset of 33,337 USPTO biotech utility patents, their 860,879 in-text and 637,570 front-page references to Web of Science journal articles, we found a remarkable low overlap between these two types of references. We also found that in-text references are more basic and have more scientific citations than front-page references. The difference in interdisciplinarity and novelty is small when comparing at the reference level and insignificant when comparing at the patent level. We analyze the association between patent value (as measured by patent citations and market value) and characteristics of referenced sciences. Results are substantially different between in-text and front-page references. In addition, in-text referenced papers have a higher chance of being listed on the front-page of the same patent when they are moderately basic, less interdisciplinary, less novel, and have more scientific citations.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Jian & Verberne, Suzan, 2024. "Comparing patent in-text and front-page references to science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:4:s1751157724000774
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2024.101564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000774
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101564?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. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2022. "Reliance on science by inventors: Hybrid extraction of in‐text patent‐to‐article citations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 369-392, April.
    2. Leonid Kogan & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Noah Stoffman, 2017. "Technological Innovation, Resource Allocation, and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(2), pages 665-712.
    3. Jian Wang & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2015. "Interdisciplinarity and Impact: Distinct Effects of Variety, Balance, and Disparity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Cyril Verluise & Gabriele Cristelli & Kyle Higham & Gaetan de Rassenfosse, 2020. "The Missing 15 Percent of Patent Citations," Working Papers 13, Chair of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy.
    5. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    6. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2010. "When Do Applicants Search for Prior Art?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 399-416, May.
    7. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    8. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    9. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    10. Diana Hicks & Anthony Breitzman & Kimberly Hamilton & Francis Narin, 2000. "Research excellence and patented innovation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 310-320, October.
    11. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    12. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    13. Martin Meyer, 2000. "What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 49(1), pages 93-123, August.
    14. Anthony F. J. Raan & Jos J. Winnink, 2018. "Do younger Sleeping Beauties prefer a technological prince?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(2), pages 701-717, February.
    15. R. J. W. Tussen & R. K. Buter & Th. N. van Leeuwen, 2000. "Technological Relevance of Science: An Assessment of Citation Linkages between Patents and Research Papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 389-412, February.
    16. Andy Stirling, 2007. "A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society," SPRU Working Paper Series 156, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    17. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    18. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    19. Sadao NAGAOKA & Isamu YAMAUCHI, 2015. "The Use of Science for Inventions and its Identification: Patent level evidence matched with survey," Discussion papers 15105, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    21. Jian Wang, 2013. "Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 851-872, March.
    22. repec:osf:socarx:x78ys_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Julie Callaert & Maikel Pellens & Bart Looy, 2014. "Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1617-1629, March.
    24. Schumpeter Tamada & Yusuke Naito & Fumio Kodama & Kiminori Gemba & Jun Suzuki, 2006. "Significant difference of dependence upon scientific knowledge among different technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(2), pages 289-302, August.
    25. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on Science by Inventors: Hybrid Extraction of In-text Patent-to-Article Citations," NBER Working Papers 27987, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    26. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
    27. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    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. Krzysztof Szczygielski & Jerzy Mycielski, 2024. "The mutual reinforcement of scientific and technological knowledge—a technology-level analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6533-6549, November.

    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. Bing Li & Shiji Chen & Vincent Larivière, 2023. "Interdisciplinarity affects the technological impact of scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(12), pages 6527-6559, December.
    2. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    3. Keye Wu & Ziyue Xie & Jia Tina Du, 2024. "Does science disrupt technology? Examining science intensity, novelty, and recency through patent-paper citations in the pharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5469-5491, September.
    4. Yuan Xu & Xi Chen & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2025. "Will patents with more interdisciplinary scientific knowledge have higher technological impact? Empirical evidence from USPTO patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(4), pages 2037-2068, April.
    5. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    6. Bryan, Kevin A. & Ozcan, Yasin & Sampat, Bhaven, 2020. "In-text patent citations: A user's guide," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    7. Chen, Xi & Mao, Jin & Li, Gang, 2024. "A co-citation approach to the analysis on the interaction between scientific and technological knowledge," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3).
    8. Xingyu Gao & Qiang Wu & Yuanyuan Liu & Ruilu Yang, 2024. "Pasteur’s quadrant in AI: do patent-cited papers have higher scientific impact?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(2), pages 909-932, February.
    9. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    10. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    11. Sotaro Shibayama & Jian Wang, 2020. "Measuring originality in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 409-427, January.
    12. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    13. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1572-1594, September.
    14. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    15. Deyun Yin & Zhao Wu & Kazuki Yokota & Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama, 2023. "Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Lian, Xiangpeng & Zhang, Yi & Wu, Mengjia & Guo, Ying, 2025. "Do scientific knowledge flows inspire exploratory innovation? Evidence from US biomedical and life sciences firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Chen, Xi & Mao, Jin & Ma, Yaxue & Li, Gang, 2024. "The knowledge linkage between science and technology influences corporate technological innovation: Evidence from scientific publications and patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    19. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    20. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.

    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:18:y:2024:i:4:s1751157724000774. 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.