Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a rich literature on how science and technology are related to each other. Patent citation analysis is amongst the most frequently used to tool to track the strengths of links. In this paper we explore the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Our observations indicate that patent-cited papers perform better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this way. More specifically, we found that articles cited in patents are more likely to be cited also by other papers. The share of highly cited papers is the most striking result. Instead of the average of 4% of all papers, 13.8% of the papers cited once or twice in patents fall into this category and even 23.5% of the papers more frequently cited in patents receive citation rates far above the standard. Our analyses further demonstrate the presence and the relevance of bandwagon effects driving the development of science and technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of University Patenting: Myths and grounded. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). Patents and publications: The lexical connection. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 665–694). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 513–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1985). Scientometric indicators. A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact. Singapore and Philadelphia: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2007). Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 311–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implication for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). Institutional variations in problem choice and persistence among scientists. Research Policy, 23(4), 425–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2007). Characteristic scores and scales. A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations in the triple helix. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Schlemmer, B., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2003). Nanotechnology—analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technologic endeavour. Accessible via: http://www.ecoom.be/nanotech_domain_study.pdf.

  • Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2009). Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics, 78(1), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Multitechnology corporations: Why they have ‘distributed’ rather than ‘distinctive core’ capabilities. California Management Review, 39, 8–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, D. (2000). 360 degree linkage analysis. Research Evaluation, 9, 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology—an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (2005). Scale-independent bibliometric indicators. Measurement, 3(1), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaramangalam, K. (2004). Does collaborating with academia improve industry science? Evidence from the UK Biotechnology Sector, 1988–2001. ASLIB Proceedings, 57(3), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuusi, O., & Meyer, M. (2002). Technological generalizations and leitbilder—the anticipation of technological opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(6), 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langlois, R. N. (1992). Transaction costs economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1, 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (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, 35(10), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology—interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki, K., & Islam, N. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1995). Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5, 183–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSTC (National Science and Technology Council). (2002). National nanotechnology initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan (FY 2003). Report, June 2002.

  • Porter, A. L. & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Manuscript under review, available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/profile167630.html.

  • Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science—a study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, I., Park, J.-H., & Meyer, M. (2010, forthcoming). Hybrid nanomaterial research: Is it really interdisciplinary? In K. Rurack & R. Martínez-Máñez (Eds.), The supramolecular chemistry of organic-inorganic hybrid materials. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.

  • Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In P. Kroes & M. Bakker (Eds.), Technological development and science in the industrial age (pp. 231–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., & Debackere, K. (2003). Do science–technology interactions pay off when developing technology? Scientometrics, 57(3), 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Reference-based publication networks with episodic memories. Scientometrics, 63(3), 549–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Management, School of Business, Management and Economics, Mantell Building, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK

    M. Meyer

  2. Centre for R&D Monitoring, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    M. Meyer, K. Debackere & W. Glänzel

  3. Department of MSI, KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    M. Meyer, K. Debackere & W. Glänzel

Authors
  1. M. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Debackere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Glänzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Glänzel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M., Debackere, K. & Glänzel, W. Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics 85, 527–539 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation