IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revepe/v2y2021i1d10.1007_s43253-020-00027-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks

Author

Listed:
  • Mariia Shkolnykova

    (University of Bremen)

Abstract

The interdependence of science and technology has been of high interest for researchers from different fields for several decades now. As they represent different means of knowledge output protection, patents and research articles generally have different reasons for creation and different audiences. However, some of the inventors may be interested in making an impact on the scientific community and vice versa. This interaction between technology space (patents) and science space (articles) is especially important for high-technology fields, where both research institutions and enterprises play important roles in the innovative environment. This paper investigates the interaction between science and technology in the case of German plant biotechnology. With the help of network analysis tools, the evolution and co-evolution of co-inventors’ and co-authors’ networks for the period 1995–2015 is explored. Finally, the topics of the patents and papers from the overlap were analyzed with the help of text mining tools in order to identify the differences of topics between science/technology and their overlap. As a result, sizable differences in nature and advancement are observed between the two network types. Although the overlap between these spheres of innovative activities increased over time, the role author-inventors played in the science or technology space varied.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:revepe:v:2:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s43253-020-00027-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s43253-020-00027-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43253-020-00027-y
    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/s43253-020-00027-y?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. Steven Casper & Mark Lehrer & David Soskice, 1999. "Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 5-24.
    2. Lucena-Piquero, D. & Vicente, Jérôme, 2019. "The visible hand of cluster policy makers: An analysis of Aerospace Valley (2006-2015) using a place-based network methodology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 830-842.
    3. Joel A. C. Baum & Tony Calabrese & Brian S. Silverman, 2000. "Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 267-294, March.
    4. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    5. Maria Alessandra Rossi & Fabio Pammolli, 2005. "Intellectual property, technological regimes and market dynamics," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2005(2).
    6. Tom Broekel & Marcel Bednarz, 2018. "Disentangling link formation and dissolution in spatial networks: An Application of a Two-Mode STERGM to a Project-Based R&D Network in the German Biotechnology Industry," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 677-704, September.
    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. 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.
    9. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    10. Noyons, E. C. M. & Luwel, M. & Moed, H. F., 1998. "Assessment of Flemish R&D in the field of information technology: A bibliometric evaluation based on publication and patent data, combined with OECD research input statistics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 285-300, July.
    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. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    13. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    14. Pao-Long Chang & Chao-Chan Wu & Hoang-Jyh Leu, 2010. "Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission display," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 5-19, January.
    15. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S., 2005. "University-based technology initiatives: Quantitative and qualitative evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 253-257, April.
    16. Sujit Bhattacharya & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Large firms and the science-technology interface Patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 265-279, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Delio Lucena-Piquero & Jérôme Vicente, 2019. "The visible hand of cluster policy makers: An analysis of Aerospace Valley (2006-2015) using a place-based network methodology," Post-Print hal-02074787, HAL.
    19. Mogoutov, Andrei & Kahane, Bernard, 2007. "Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 893-903, July.
    20. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    21. Martin Meyer & Tatiana Siniläinen & Jan Timm Utecht, 2003. "Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 321-350, October.
    22. Lin Zhu & Donghua Zhu & Xuefeng Wang & Scott W. Cunningham & Zhinan Wang, 2019. "An integrated solution for detecting rising technology stars in co-inventor networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 137-172, October.
    23. Jiang Tan & Hui-Zhen Fu & Yuh-Shan Ho, 2014. "A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in Science Citation Index Expanded," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1473-1490, February.
    24. R Alexander Bentley, 2008. "Random Drift versus Selection in Academic Vocabulary: An Evolutionary Analysis of Published Keywords," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-7, August.
    25. 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.
    26. David Audretsch, 2014. "From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 313-321, June.
    27. 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.
    28. Christoph Roesler & Tom Broekel, 2017. "The role of universities in a network of subsidized R&D collaboration: The case of the biotechnology-industry in Germany," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 37(2), pages 135-160, October.
    29. Iris Wanzenböck & Thomas Scherngell & Thomas Brenner, 2013. "What determines the position of regions in European knowledge networks? A comparative perspective on R&D collaboration, co-patent and co-publication networks," ERSA conference papers ersa13p332, European Regional Science Association.
    30. 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.
    31. Michael Fritsch & Muhamed Kudic, 2019. "Micro fluidity and macro stability in inventor networks," Jena Economic Research Papers 2019-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    32. Antje Klitkou & Stian Nygaard & Martin Meyer, 2007. "Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 491-518, February.
    33. Riitta Katila, 2000. "Using patent data to measure innovation performance," International Journal of Business Performance Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2/3), pages 180-193.
    34. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    35. Kaiser, Robert & Prange, Heiko, 2004. "The reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems--the example of German biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 395-408, April.
    36. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Ba, Zhichao & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "A novel approach to measuring science-technology linkage: From the perspective of knowledge network coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Xian Li & Dangzhi Zhao & Xiaojun Hu, 0. "Gatekeepers in knowledge transfer between science and technology: an exploratory study in the area of gene editing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Milad Abbasiharofteh & Tom Broekel, 2021. "Still in the shadow of the wall? The case of the Berlin biotechnology cluster," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(1), pages 73-94, February.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Xia Gao & Jiancheng Guan, 2009. "Networks of scientific journals: An exploration of Chinese patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 283-302, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technological space; Science space; Network analysis; Biotechnology; Patents; Bibliometrics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    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:spr:revepe:v:2:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s43253-020-00027-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.