IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i3d10.1007_s11192-025-05275-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘‘Exploring academic patent-paper pairs: a new methodology for analyzing Japan’s research landscape’’

Author

Listed:
  • Van Thien Nguyen

    (Toyo University)

  • Rene Carraz

    (Toyo University)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new method for matching patents with academic publications to create patent-paper pairs (PPP). These pairs can identify instances where a research result is both applied in a patent and published in a paper. The study focuses on an exhaustive sample of patenting universities and public research institutes in Japan, utilizing a new dataset that contains patent-to-article citations and a machine learning model as part of the matching process. Expert consultations and benchmarking with other models were conducted to enhance the robustness of the methodology. Using a set of 115 Japanese universities and 22 public research institutes together with patent (USPTO) and publication data (OpenAlex) between 2004 and 2018, we built a dataset of 16,899 PPPs out of 10,896 granted patents and 652,610 publications. The results demonstrate that this phenomenon is widespread in academia and our data show the diversity of the academic disciplines and technical field involved, highlighting the intricate connections between scientific and technical concepts and communities. On the methodological side, we documented in-depth complementary validation techniques to enhance the precision and reliability of our matching algorithm. Using open-source data, our methodology is adaptable to diverse national contexts and can be readily adopted by other research teams investigating similar topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Thien Nguyen & Rene Carraz, 2025. "‘‘Exploring academic patent-paper pairs: a new methodology for analyzing Japan’s research landscape’’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1329-1356, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05275-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05275-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05275-5
    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/s11192-025-05275-5?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. Lissoni, Francesco & Montobbio, Fabio & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2013. "Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-69.
    2. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    5. Kazuyuki Motohashi & Hitoshi Koshiba & Kenta Ikeuchi, 2024. "Measuring science and innovation linkage using text mining of research papers and patent information," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(4), pages 2159-2179, April.
    6. Jiangang Hao & Tin Kam Ho, 2019. "Machine Learning Made Easy: A Review of Scikit-learn Package in Python Programming Language," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(3), pages 348-361, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Sam Arts & Bruno Cassiman & Juan Carlos Gomez, 2018. "Text matching to measure patent similarity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 62-84, January.
    9. Walsh, John P. & Cohen, Wesley M. & Cho, Charlene, 2007. "Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1184-1203, October.
    10. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    11. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2009. "The Impact Of Academic Patenting On The Rate, Quality And Direction Of (Public) Research Output," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 637-676, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    14. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    15. Byeongwoo Kang & Kazuyuki Motohashi, 2020. "Academic contribution to industrial innovation by funding type," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 169-193, July.
    16. Goldstein, Anna P. & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2018. "Simultaneous pursuit of discovery and invention in the US Department of Energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1505-1512.
    17. Zucker, Lynne G & Darby, Michael R & Armstrong, Jeff, 1998. "Geographically Localized Knowledge: Spillovers or Markets?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(1), pages 65-86, January.
    18. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    19. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2020. "Misallocation of scientific credit: the role of hierarchy and preferences. An extension of Lissoni et al. (2013)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(6), pages 1471-1482.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. Matt Marx & David H. Hsu, 2022. "Revisiting the Entrepreneurial Commercialization of Academic Science: Evidence from “Twin” Discoveries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1330-1352, February.
    24. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An & Liyuan Hao & Guancan Yang, 2021. "An approach for detecting the commonality and specialty between scientific publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7445-7475, September.
    25. Susanne Beck & Carsten Bergenholtz & Marcel Bogers & Tiare-Maria Brasseur & Marie Louise Conradsen & Diletta Di Marco & Andreas P. Distel & Leonhard Dobusch & Daniel Dörler & Agnes Effert & Benedikt F, 2022. "The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 136-185, February.
    26. Compagnucci, Lorenzo & Spigarelli, Francesca, 2020. "The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    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. Yuhang Wang & Lei Pei & Jianjun Sun & Lele Kang, 2025. "Trace on both sides: a two-step text mining method to identify academic inventors’ patent–paper pairs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 833-860, February.
    2. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    3. Seokbeom Kwon & Kazuyuki Motohashi & Kenta Ikeuchi, 2022. "Chasing two hares at once? Effect of joint institutional change for promoting commercial use of university knowledge and scientific research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1242-1272, August.
    4. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Andrew J. Nelson, 2016. "How to Share “A Really Good Secret”: Managing Sharing/Secrecy Tensions Around Scientific Knowledge Disclosure," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 265-285, April.
    6. Olof Ejermo & John Källström, 2016. "What is the causal effect of R&D on patenting activity in a “professor’s privilege” country? Evidence from Sweden," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 677-694, October.
    7. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2017. "Fishing for complementarities: Research grants and research productivity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-38.
    8. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    9. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    10. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    11. Laurent R Bergé & Thorsten Doherr & Katrin Hussinger, 2023. "How patent rights affect university science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(3), pages 673-699.
    12. 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.
    13. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    14. Bhaven N. Sampat, 2018. "A Survey of Empirical Evidence on Patents and Innovation," NBER Working Papers 25383, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Yi Zhao & Chengzhi Zhang, 2025. "A review on the novelty measurements of academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 727-753, February.
    16. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel, 2014. "Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1760-1773.
    17. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    18. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," 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 275-314, Elsevier.
    19. 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.
    20. Perkmann, Markus & Walsh, Kathryn, 2008. "Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1884-1891, December.

    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:3:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05275-5. 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.