IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v84y2010i2d10.1007_s11192-009-0140-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers

Author

Listed:
  • Jiancheng Guan

    (Fudan University)

  • Gangbo Wang

    (Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics)

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between patenting and publishing in the field of nanotechnology for Chinese universities. With their growing patents, Chinese universities are becoming main technological source for nanotechnology development that is extremely important in China. Matching names of patentees to names of research paper authors in Chinese universities, we find 6,321 authors with patents, i.e. inventor–authors, and 65,001 without any patent. Research performance is measured using three indicators—publication counts, total citations and h-index received by each researcher. It is found that research performance of authors who are also inventors holding patents is better than that of those authors who do not have a patent, and that most of high quality research is performed by inventor–authors. Our findings indicate that patent-oriented research may produce better results.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:84:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0140-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0140-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0140-9
    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/s11192-009-0140-9?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Ronald N. Kostoff & Raymond G. Koytcheff & Clifford G. Y. Lau, 2007. "Global nanotechnology research metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 565-601, March.
    4. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau, 2006. "An informetric model for the Hirsch-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 121-129, October.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    6. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    7. Guan, Jiancheng & Ma, Nan, 2007. "China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience `giants'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 880-886, July.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    9. Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Measuring China"s research performance using the Science Citation Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(3), pages 281-296, March.
    10. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    11. Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2005. "Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 103-109, August.
    12. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    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. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Zifeng Chen & Jiancheng Guan, 2011. "Mapping of biotechnology patents of China from 1995–2008," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 73-89, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Jiancheng Guan & He Wei, 2015. "A bilateral comparison of research performance at an institutional level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 147-173, July.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    6. Maria Karaulova & Abdullah Gök & Oliver Shackleton & Philip Shapira, 2016. "Science system path-dependencies and their influences: nanotechnology research in Russia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 645-670, May.
    7. Jia Zheng & Zhi-yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-zen Chen & Mu-hsuan Huang, 2014. "International collaboration development in nanotechnology: a perspective of patent network analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 683-702, January.
    8. R. Karpagam & S. Gopalakrishnan & M. Natarajan & B. Ramesh Babu, 2011. "Mapping of nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(2), pages 501-522, November.
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    10. Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2011. "Regional development and interregional collaboration in the growth of nanotechnology research in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 299-315, February.
    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. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    13. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2011. "International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 159-170, April.
    14. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    15. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    16. Yi Zhang & Mingting Kou & Kaihua Chen & Jiancheng Guan & Yuchen Li, 2016. "Modelling the Basic Research Competitiveness Index (BR-CI) with an application to the biomass energy field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1221-1241, September.
    17. Barham, Bradford L. & Foltz, Jeremy D., 2007. "Patenting, Commercialization, and US Academic Research in the 21st Century: The Resilience of Basic, Federally-Funded Open Science," Staff Paper Series 513, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    18. Kostoff, Ronald N., 2008. "Comparison of China/USA science and technology performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 354-363.
    19. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    20. Roberto Patuelli & Andrea Vaona & Christoph Grimpe, 2010. "The German East‐West Divide In Knowledge Production: An Application To Nanomaterial Patenting," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(5), pages 568-582, 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:84:y:2010:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0140-9. 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.