IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v115y2018i2d10.1007_s11192-018-2693-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience

Author

Listed:
  • Yashuang Qi

    (Nankai University)

  • Na Zhu

    (Nankai University)

  • Yujia Zhai

    (Tianjin Normal University)

  • Ying Ding

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

Patent and scientific literature are the fundamental sources of innovation in knowledge creation and transfer activities. Establishing and understanding the complex relationships between them can help scientists and stakeholders to predict and promote the innovation process. In this paper, we consider the domain of nanoscience, using a large scale collection of patents and scientific literature to find evolution patterns and distinctive keywords of each topic in a particular period. By extracting the semantic-level topics from a dataset of nearly 810,000 scientific literature from Web of Science and 160,000 patents from Derwent, the results reveal that the degree of topic popularity for both innovative platforms shows a totally different situation during the last 20 years from 1995 to 2015. In addition, the top keywords of patents and scientific literature, representing the topic content of concern, have changed respectively as time went on. Not only our analysis can be used for confirming existing topics in nanoscience, but it also gives new views on the relationship between scientific literature and patents.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2693-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2693-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2693-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/s11192-018-2693-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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Rui Li & Tamy Chambers & Ying Ding & Guo Zhang & Liansheng Meng, 2014. "Patent citation analysis: Calculating science linkage based on citing motivation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 1007-1017, May.
    7. Masatsura Igami & Teruo Okazaki, 2007. "Capturing Nanotechnology's Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2007/4, OECD Publishing.
    8. Giada Di Stefano & Alfonso Gambardella & Gianmario Verona, 2012. "Technology Push and Demand Pull Perspectives in Innovation Studies: Current Findings and Future Research Directions," Post-Print hal-00696607, HAL.
    9. Marianna Makri & Michael A. Hitt & Peter J. Lane, 2010. "Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 602-628, June.
    10. Sujit Bhattacharya & Hildrun Kretschmer & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 369-390, October.
    11. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 545-560, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Gibbons, Michael & Johnston, Ron, 1974. "The roles of science in technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 220-242, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Sercan Ozcan & Nazrul Islam, 2017. "Patent information retrieval: approaching a method and analysing nanotechnology patent collaborations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 941-970, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Guan, Jiancheng & Zhao, Qingjun, 2013. "The impact of university–industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(7), pages 1271-1286.
    18. Lee Branstetter & Yoshiaki Ogura, 2005. "Is Academic Science Driving a Surge in Industrial Innovation? Evidence from Patent Citations," NBER Working Papers 11561, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    20. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Hsiao-Wen Yang & Dar-Zen Chen, 2015. "Industry–academia collaboration in fuel cells: a perspective from paper and patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1301-1318, November.
    21. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    22. Hsu, Chia-Wen & Lien, Yung-Chih & Chen, Homin, 2015. "R&D internationalization and innovation performance," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 187-195.
    23. Beibei Hu & Xianlei Dong & Chenwei Zhang & Timothy D. Bowman & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević & Chaoqun Ni & Erjia Yan & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2643-2656, December.
    24. 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.
    25. Nemet, Gregory F., 2009. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 700-709, June.
    26. 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.
    27. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    28. Martin Meyer, 2002. "Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(2), pages 193-212, June.
    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. Yu-Wei Chang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2021. "Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    2. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Ding, Ying & Song, Min, 2020. "Monolingual and multilingual topic analysis using LDA and BERT embeddings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    4. Yutao Sun & Chen Zhang & Robert A. W. Kok, 2020. "The role of research outcome quality in the relationship between university research collaboration and technology transfer: empirical results from China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1003-1026, February.
    5. Cristiano Ziegler & Tiago Sinigaglia & Mario Eduardo Santos Martins & Adriano Mendonça Souza, 2021. "Technological Advances to Reduce Apis mellifera Mortality: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.
    6. K. A. Khor & L. G. Yu, 2020. "Revealing key topics shifts in thermal barrier coatings (TBC) as indicators of technological developments for aerospace engines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1763-1781, November.
    7. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    8. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    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, 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    4. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Ali Gazni & Zahra Ghaseminik, 2019. "The increasing dominance of science in the economy: Which nations are successful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1411-1426, September.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Xiaozan Lyu & Ping Zhou & Loet Leydesdorff, 2020. "Eco-system mapping of techno-science linkages at the level of scholarly journals and fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2037-2055, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Naomi Fukuzawa & Takanori Ida, 2016. "Science linkages between scientific articles and patents for leading scientists in the life and medical sciences field: the case of Japan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 629-644, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nanoscience; Lead–lag analysis; Patent; Scientific literature;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:scient:v:115:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2693-y. 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.