IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v89y2011i1d10.1007_s11192-011-0443-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies

Author

Listed:
  • Ugo Finardi

    (Università di Torino
    CERIS-CNR)

Abstract

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are considered important for the development of science, technology and innovation, and the study of their characters can be a great help to the decisions of policy makers and of practitioners. This work is centred on the issue of the time relations between science and technology/innovation, and in particular on the speed of transfer of science-generated knowledge towards its exploitation in patenting. A methodology based on patent citations is used in order to measure the time lag between cited journal articles and citing patent, and thus the time proximity between the two steps. Keywords regarding nanotechnology/nanoscience items are searched in order to collect data useful for the analysis. Collateral measures, performed on another class of materials and on the spatial origin of citing/cited documents, help giving evidence of the peculiarity of the behaviour and on its nature. The most representative time lag between production of scientific knowledge and its technological exploitation appears being around 3–4 years.

Suggested Citation

  • Ugo Finardi, 2011. "Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 37-50, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:89:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0443-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0443-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0443-5
    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/s11192-011-0443-5?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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Avenel, E. & Favier, A.V. & Ma, S. & Mangematin, V. & Rieu, C., 2007. "Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 864-870, July.
    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. Laura I. Schultz & Frederick L. Joutz, 2010. "Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 155-170, October.
    6. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    7. 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.
    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. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: The case of a small economy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 425-439, February.
    10. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Thoma, Grid, 2007. "Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 813-831, July.
    11. E. Bacchiocchi & F. Montobbio, 2009. "Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 169-181, April.
    12. Bozeman, Barry & Laredo, Philippe & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of "nano" S&T," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 807-812, July.
    13. Barry Bozeman & Philippe Larédo & Vincent Mangematin, 2007. "Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T," Post-Print hal-00424523, HAL.
    14. Mario Coccia & Ugo Finardi & Diego Margon, 2010. "Research trends in nanotechnology studies across geo-economic areas," CERIS Working Paper 201005, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    15. 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.
    16. 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. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    2. Ugo Finardi, 2013. "The technological paradigm of Nanosciences and Technologies: a study of science-technology time and space relations," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 39(2), pages 11-29, Julio-Dic.
    3. Thomas Brenner & Matthias Duschl, 2015. "Causal dynamic effects in regional systems of technological activities: a SVAR approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 55(1), pages 103-130, October.
    4. David Popp, 2019. "Environmental policy and innovation: a decade of research," CESifo Working Paper Series 7544, CESifo.
    5. 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.
    6. David Popp, 2019. "Environmental Policy and Innovation: A Decade of Research," NBER Working Papers 25631, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Catalán, Pablo & Navarrete, Carlos & Figueroa, Felipe, 2022. "The scientific and technological cross-space: Is technological diversification driven by scientific endogenous capacity?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    8. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    9. 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.
    10. Thomas Brenner, 2014. "Science, Innovation and National Growth," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2014-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    11. David Popp & Jacquelyn Pless & Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone, 2020. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 175-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    14. Jeong, Do-Heon & Song, Min, 2014. "Time gap analysis by the topic model-based temporal technique," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 776-790.
    15. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
    16. Naomi Fukuzawa & Takanori Ida, 2014. "Science linkages focused on star scientists in the life and medical sciences: The case of Japan," Discussion papers e-14-006, Graduate School of Economics Project Center, Kyoto University.
    17. Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Khushboo Singhal & Ashraf Uddin, 2015. "Scientometric mapping of research on ‘Big Data’," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 727-741, November.
    18. Soo Jeung Lee, 2019. "Academic entrepreneurship: exploring the effects of academic patenting activity on publication and collaboration among heterogeneous researchers in South Korea," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1993-2013, December.
    19. David Popp, 2020. "Promoting Clean Energy Innovation," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 30-35, January.
    20. Gelsomina Catalano & Gaston García López & Alejandro Sánchez & Silvia Vignetti, 2021. "From scientific experiments to innovation: Impact pathways of a Synchrotron Light Facility," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 447-472, September.
    21. Finardi, Ugo, 2014. "On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 13-24.

    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. Ugo Finardi, 2010. "Temporal and spatial relations between patents and scientific journal articles: the case of nanotechnologies," CERIS Working Paper 201007, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    2. Ugo Finardi, 2013. "The technological paradigm of Nanosciences and Technologies: a study of science-technology time and space relations," Economía: teoría y práctica, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, México, vol. 39(2), pages 11-29, Julio-Dic.
    3. 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).
    4. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Fiedler, Marina & Welpe, Isabell M., 2010. "Antecedents of cooperative commercialisation strategies of nanotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 400-410, April.
    11. Colombelli, Alessandra & Krafft, Jackie & Quatraro, Francesco, 2014. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors in European regions: A proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1681-1696.
    12. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2012. "The emergence of new technology-based sectors at the regional level: a proximity-based analysis of nanotechnology," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1211, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2012.
    13. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Dovev Lavie & Israel Drori, 2012. "Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 704-724, June.
    16. Sabatier, Mareva & Chollet, Barthélemy, 2017. "Is there a first mover advantage in science? Pioneering behavior and scientific production in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 522-533.
    17. 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.
    18. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Nicolas Battard & Paul Donnelly & Vincent Mangematin, 2017. "Organizational Responses to Institutional Pressures: Reconfiguration of Spaces in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies," Post-Print hal-01745508, HAL.
    20. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Patent-research relations; Patent; Journal article; Nanosciences; Nanotechnologies; Technological trajectories; Data mining; Innovation; Knowledge diffusion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L6 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:89:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0443-5. 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.