IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i2d10.1007_s11192-025-05245-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing examiner citations and applicant citations: insights into technology evolution

Author

Listed:
  • Yali Qiao

    (Chinese Academy of Sciences)

  • Alan L. Porter

    (Search Technology, Inc.)

  • Ying Huang

    (Wuhan University
    KU Leuven)

  • Haiyun Xu

    (Shandong University of Technology)

  • Xuefeng Wang

    (Beijing Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Patent citation data is widely used in the study of technology evolution, but existing research has overlooked an issue that there may be potential differences between examiner citations and applicant citations, which may introduce biases from examiner citations. Yet, there is still a lack of systematic comparative study on the differences between applicant citations and examiner citations for technology evolution. To address this, we conducted a comprehensive comparison using USPTO patent data across four dimensions: technology profiling, technology relevance, technology diversity, and technology evolution pathways. For our case study, we selected the promising research area of photovoltaic cells. After comparing nine sub-technologies in this area, we have drawn some conclusions: (1) Applicants tend to provide more citations than examiners, and examiners tend to cite more recent patents than applicants; (2) There is no apparent inclination for applicants to avoid citing particularly relevant patents. On average, examiner citations are slightly closer in technological proximity to their invention than those cited by applicants; (3) The degree of diversity for applicant citations, examiner citations, and applicant & examiner citations at a single patent level lacks consistency. However, their average trend by year or by sub-technology is similar after adding examiner citations; (4) Merging family members strongly impacts main pathways through added examiner citations, which is quite contrary in the citation network with only USPTO-granted patents without merging patent members; (5) In sub-technologies at the growth stage, applicants and examiners both cite more recent patents and tend to integrate border technologies from other fields, which can be used as an indicator for evaluating the potential to become emerging. The findings remind us to pay extra attention to the context in which citation data is used to measure technology evolution, and can serve as signals for technology assessment as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Yali Qiao & Alan L. Porter & Ying Huang & Haiyun Xu & Xuefeng Wang, 2025. "Comparing examiner citations and applicant citations: insights into technology evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 537-563, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05245-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05245-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05245-x
    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/s11192-025-05245-x?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. Hegde, Deepak & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Examiner citations, applicant citations, and the private value of patents," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 287-289, December.
    2. Juan Alcácer & Michelle Gittelman, 2006. "Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 774-779, November.
    3. Miguelez, Ernest & Noumedem Temgoua, Claudia, 2020. "Inventor migration and knowledge flows: A two-way communication channel?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(9).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Tan, David & Roberts, Peter W., 2010. "Categorical coherence, classification volatility and examiner-added citations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 89-102, February.
    7. Joaquín M. Azagra‐Caro & Pauline Mattsson & François Perruchas, 2011. "Smoothing the lies: The distinctive effects of patent characteristics on examiner and applicant citations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(9), pages 1727-1740, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Daniele Rotolo & Ismael Rafols & Michael M. Hopkins & Loet Leydesdorff, 2017. "Strategic intelligence on emerging technologies: Scientometric overlay mapping," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(1), pages 214-233, January.
    10. 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.
    11. John S. Liu & Louis Y.Y. Lu, 2012. "An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 528-542, March.
    12. Ying Huang & Donghua Zhu & Yue Qian & Yi Zhang & Alan L. Porter & Yuqin Liu & Ying Guo, 2017. "A hybrid method to trace technology evolution pathways: a case study of 3D printing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 185-204, April.
    13. Ying Huang & Jannik Schuehle & Alan L. Porter & Jan Youtie, 2015. "A systematic method to create search strategies for emerging technologies based on the Web of Science: illustrated for ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2005-2022, December.
    14. Lin Zhang & Ronald Rousseau & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2016. "Diversity of references as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Taking similarity between subject fields into account," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1257-1265, May.
    15. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    16. Jacques Michel & Bernd Bettels, 2001. "Patent citation analysis.A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 185-201, April.
    17. Andrew Rodriguez & Byunghoon Kim & Mehmet Turkoz & Jae-Min Lee & Byoung-Youl Coh & Myong K. Jeong, 2015. "New multi-stage similarity measure for calculation of pairwise patent similarity in a patent citation network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 565-581, May.
    18. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    19. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    20. Liu, John S. & Lu, Louis Y.Y. & Lu, Wen-Min & Lin, Bruce J.Y., 2013. "Data envelopment analysis 1978–2010: A citation-based literature survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 3-15.
    21. Loet Leydesdorff & Floortje Alkemade & Gaston Heimeriks & Rinke Hoekstra, 2015. "Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: geographic and technological perspectives on “photovoltaic cells”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 629-651, January.
    22. John S. Liu & Louis Y.Y. Lu, 2012. "An integrated approach for main path analysis: Development of the Hirsch index as an example," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 528-542, March.
    23. 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.
    24. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    25. Alan L. Porter & Alex S. Cohen & J. David Roessner & Marty Perreault, 2007. "Measuring researcher interdisciplinarity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 117-147, July.
    26. 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.
    27. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    28. John S. Liu & Louis Y. Y. Lu & Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho, 2019. "A few notes on main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 379-391, April.
    29. Olof Ejermo, 2005. "Technological Diversity and Jacobs’ Externality Hypothesis Revisited," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 167-195, June.
    30. Péter Érdi & Kinga Makovi & Zoltán Somogyvári & Katherine Strandburg & Jan Tobochnik & Péter Volf & László Zalányi, 2013. "Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(1), pages 225-242, April.
    31. Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho & Vincent H. Lin & John S. Liu, 2014. "Exploring knowledge diffusion among nations: a study of core technologies in fuel cells," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(1), pages 149-171, July.
    32. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    33. Rosell, Carlos & Agrawal, Ajay, 2009. "Have university knowledge flows narrowed?: Evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 1-13, February.
    34. Cotropia, Christopher A. & Lemley, Mark A. & Sampat, Bhaven, 2013. "Do applicant patent citations matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 844-854.
    35. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    36. Tetsuo Wada, 2018. "The choice of examiner patent citations for refusals: evidence from the trilateral offices," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 825-843, November.
    37. Alan L Porter & David J Roessner & Anne E Heberger, 2008. "How interdisciplinary is a given body of research?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 273-282, December.
    38. Lidan Jiang & Jingyan Chen & Yuhan Bao & Fang Zou, 2022. "Exploring the patterns of international technology diffusion in AI from the perspective of patent citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5307-5323, September.
    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. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    2. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
    5. Ying Huang & Donghua Zhu & Yue Qian & Yi Zhang & Alan L. Porter & Yuqin Liu & Ying Guo, 2017. "A hybrid method to trace technology evolution pathways: a case study of 3D printing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 185-204, April.
    6. Hain, Daniel S. & Jurowetzki, Roman & Buchmann, Tobias & Wolf, Patrick, 2022. "A text-embedding-based approach to measuring patent-to-patent technological similarity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Kuan, Chung-Huei & Lin, Jia-Tian & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2021. "Characterizing Patent Assignees by Their Structural Positions Relative to a Field’s Evolutionary Trajectory," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    8. Azagra-Caro,Joaquín M. & Tur,Elena M., 2014. "Examiner amendments to applications to the european patent office: Procedures, knowledge bases and country specificities," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201406, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 29 Nov 2018.
    9. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    10. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    11. Tetsuo Wada, 2024. "Experience effects of patent examiners: an empirical study of the career length and citation patterns on triadic patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 6333-6348, October.
    12. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    13. Dechezlepretre, Antoine & Martin, Ralf & Mohnen, Myra, 2014. "Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60501, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Huang, Ying & Li, Ruinan & Zou, Fang & Jiang, Lidan & Porter, Alan L. & Zhang, Lin, 2022. "Technology life cycle analysis: From the dynamic perspective of patent citation networks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Shuo Xu & Liyuan Hao & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Ting Li, 2020. "Review on emerging research topics with key-route main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 607-624, January.
    17. Hur, Wonchang & Oh, Junbyoung, 2021. "A man is known by the company he keeps?: A structural relationship between backward citation and forward citation of patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    18. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    19. Higham, Kyle & Contisciani, Martina & De Bacco, Caterina, 2022. "Multilayer patent citation networks: A comprehensive analytical framework for studying explicit technological relationships," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Huang, Ying & Chen, Lixin & Zhang, Lin, 2020. "Patent citation inflation: The phenomenon, its measurement, and relative indicators to temper its effects," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).

    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:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05245-x. 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.