IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i1p435-d1312810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Cross-Citation-Based Model for Technological Advancement Assessment: Methodology and Application

Author

Listed:
  • Shengxuan Tang

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Transportation System, School of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518000, China)

  • Ming Cai

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Transportation System, School of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518000, China)

  • Yao Xiao

    (Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Intelligent Transportation System, School of Intelligent Systems Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518000, China)

Abstract

Assessing technological advancements is crucial for the formulation of science and technology policies and making well-informed investments in the ever-evolving technology market. However, current assessment methods are predominantly geared towards mature technologies, limiting our capacity for a systematic and quantitative evaluation of emerging technologies. Overcoming this challenge is crucial for accurate technology evaluation across various fields and generations. To address this challenge, we present a novel approach that leverages bibliometrics, specifically paper citation networks, to gauge shifts in the flow of knowledge throughout the technological evolution. This method is capable of discerning a wide array of trends in technology development and serves as a highly effective tool for evaluating technological progress. In this paper, we showcase the accuracy and applicability of this approach by applying it to the realm of mobile communication technology. Furthermore, we provide a comparative analysis of its quantitative results with other conventional assessment methods. The practical significance of our model lies in providing a nuanced understanding of emerging technologies within a specific domain, enabling informed decisions, and fostering strategic planning in technology-oriented fields. In terms of originality and value, this model serves as a comprehensive tool for assessing technological progress, quantifying emerging technologies, facilitating the evaluation of diverse technological trajectories, and efficiently informing technology policy-making processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Shengxuan Tang & Ming Cai & Yao Xiao, 2024. "A Cross-Citation-Based Model for Technological Advancement Assessment: Methodology and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:1:p:435-:d:1312810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/435/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/435/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    2. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    3. Ahmad Almufarreh & Muhammad Arshad, 2023. "Promising Emerging Technologies for Teaching and Learning: Recent Developments and Future Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Park, Inchae & Yoon, Byungun, 2018. "Technological opportunity discovery for technological convergence based on the prediction of technology knowledge flow in a citation network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1199-1222.
    5. Anđelka Štilić & Edisa Puška & Adis Puška & Darko Božanić, 2023. "An Expert-Opinion-Based Evaluation Framework for Sustainable Technology-Enhanced Learning Using Z-Numbers and Fuzzy Logarithm Methodology of Additive Weights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-18, August.
    6. Ke Wang & Ziyi Ying & Shankha Shubhra Goswami & Yongsheng Yin & Yafei Zhao, 2023. "Investigating the Role of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Construction Industry Using a Delphi-ANP-TOPSIS Hybrid MCDM Concept under a Fuzzy Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-42, August.
    7. Dotsika, Fefie & Watkins, Andrew, 2017. "Identifying potentially disruptive trends by means of keyword network analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 114-127.
    8. Venugopalan, Subhashini & Rai, Varun, 2015. "Topic based classification and pattern identification in patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 236-250.
    9. Żogała-Siudem, Barbara & Cena, Anna & Siudem, Grzegorz & Gagolewski, Marek, 2023. "Interpretable reparameterisations of citation models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    10. Wen Zhang & Yuting Yang & Huigang Liang, 2023. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Enterprise Social Media in Digital Economy: Research Hotspots and Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-21, August.
    11. Guo, Jianfeng & Pan, Jiaofeng & Guo, Jianxin & Gu, Fu & Kuusisto, Jari, 2019. "Measurement framework for assessing disruptive innovations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 250-265.
    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. Jee, Su Jung & Kwon, Minji & Ha, Jung Moon & Sohn, So Young, 2019. "Exploring the forward citation patterns of patents based on the evolution of technology fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    2. Jos� Lobo & Charlotta Mellander & Kevin Stolarick & Deborah Strumsky, 2014. "The Inventive, the Educated and the Creative: How Do They Affect Metropolitan Productivity?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 155-177, February.
    3. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    4. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    5. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    6. Christoph Grimpe & Katrin Hussinger & Wolfgang Sofka, 2023. "Reaching beyond the acquirer-Target Dyad in M&A – Linkages to External knowledge sources and target firm valuation," DEM Discussion Paper Series 23-01, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    7. Forman, Chris & van Zeebroeck, Nicolas, 2019. "Digital technology adoption and knowledge flows within firms: Can the Internet overcome geographic and technological distance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    8. Curci, Ylenia & Mongeau Ospina, Christian A., 2016. "Investigating biofuels through network analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 60-72.
    9. Alex Bell & Raj Chetty & Xavier Jaravel & Neviana Petkova & John Van Reenen, 2019. "Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 647-713.
    10. Hyuk-Soo Kwon & Jihong Lee & Sokbae Lee & Ryungha Oh, 2022. "Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: trends in geographic localization, 1976–2015," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 123-147, April.
    11. Chattergoon, B. & Kerr, W.R., 2022. "Winner takes all? Tech clusters, population centers, and the spatial transformation of U.S. invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    12. Emanuele Bacchiocchi & Fabio Montobbio, 2010. "International Knowledge Diffusion and Home‐bias Effect: Do USPTO and EPO Patent Citations Tell the Same Story?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(3), pages 441-470, September.
    13. Sergey Lychagin & Joris Pinkse & Margaret E. Slade & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Spillovers in Space: Does Geography Matter?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 295-335, June.
    14. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & Esther Ferrándiz & Manuel Jiménez, 2022. "Effects of knowledge spillovers between competitors on patent quality: what patent citations reveal about a global duopoly," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1451-1487, October.
    15. Tom Broekel & Lars Mewes, 2017. "Analyzing the impact of R&D policy on regional diversification," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1726, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2017.
    16. Christian Fons-Rosen & Vincenzo Scrutinio & Katalin Szemeredi, 2016. "Colocation and knowledge diffusion: evidence from million dollar plants," CEP Discussion Papers dp1447, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Boeing, Philipp & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2019. "Measuring China's patent quality: Development and validation of ISR indices," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    18. Show-Ling Jang & Yun-Chen Yu & Tzu-Ya Wang, 2011. "Emerging firms in an emerging field: an analysis of patent citations in electronic-paper display technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 259-272, October.
    19. Yi Deng, 2005. "The Value of Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations Data," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 374, Society for Computational Economics.
    20. Jingbo Cui & Zhenxuan Wang & Haishan Yu, 2022. "Can International Climate Cooperation Induce Knowledge Spillover to Developing Countries? Evidence from CDM," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(4), pages 923-951, August.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:1:p:435-:d:1312810. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.