Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.nano.gov/, accessed July 2010.

  2. See http://www.cas.org/index.html, accessed July 2010.

  3. Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), European Patent Office (EPO), French Patent Office (INPI—Institut National de la Propriete Industrielle), German Patent Office (DPMA), Japanese Patent Office (JPO), Russian Patent Office (ROSPATENT—Russian Agency for Patents and Trademarks), United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO), United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

  4. The subscription price for SCI Finder Scholar is of several ten thousand Euros for each single access for 1 year. This means that if two persons need to access SCI Finder Scholar at the same time from two computers in the same institution (e.g. library) the fee is doubled.

References

  • Avenel, E., Favier, A. V., Ma, S., Mangematin, V., & Rieu, C. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36(6), 864–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2009). Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzani, V. (2005). Nanoscience and nanotechnology: A personal view of a chemist. Small, 1(3), 278–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertinetti, L., Tampieri, A., Landi, E., Ducati, C., Midgley, P. A., Coluccia, S., et al. (2006). Surface structure hydration, and cationic sites of nanohydroxyapatite: UHR-TEM, IR, and microgravimetric studies. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 111(10), 4027–4035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binnig, G., & Rohrer, H. (1986). Scanning tunnelling microscopy. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 30(4), 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., Laredo, P., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T. Research Policy, 36(6), 807–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celotti, G., Tampieri, A., Sprio, S., Landi, E., Bertinetti, L., Martra, G., et al. (2006). Crystallinity in apatites: how can a truly disordered fraction be distinguished from nanosize crystalline domains? Journal of Materials Science-Materials in Medicine, 17(11), 1079–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., Finardi, U., & Margon, D. (2010). Research trends in nanotechnology studies across geo-economic areas. CERIS-CNR working paper series, WP 05/10.

  • Coccia, M., Finardi, U., & Margon, D. (2011). Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9219-6.

  • Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2008). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor vs examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37(10), 1892–1908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evangelisti, C., Vitulli, G., Schiavi, S., Vitulli, M., Bertozzi, S., Salvadori, P., et al. (2007). Nanoscale Cu supported catalysts in the partial oxidation of cyclohexane with molecular oxygen. Catalysis Letters, 116(1-2), 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, D., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(4), 529–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2011). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(2), 145–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulmann, 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 

  • Ijiima, S. (1991). Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature, 354(6348), 56–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, N., & Miyazaki, K. (2010). An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains. Technovation, 30(4), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroto, H. W., Heath, J. R., O’Brien, S. C., Curl, R. F., & Smalley, R. E. (1985). C60: Buckminsterfullerene. Nature, 318(6042), 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update. Scientometrics, 76(1), 159–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 76(3), 693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Chen, H., Huang, Z., & Roco, M. C. (2007a). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(3), 337–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Lin, Y., Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2007b). Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(6), 977–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: The case of a small economy. Scientometrics, 66(2), 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, L. I., & Joutz, F. L. (2010). Methods for identifying emerging general purpose technologies: A case study of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics, 85(1), 155–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zecchina, A., Groppo, E., & Bordiga, S. (2007). Selective catalysis and nanoscience: An inseparable pair. Chemistry–A European Journal, 13(9), 2440–2460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges: Prof. S. Coluccia (University of Torino, Italy) for helpful comments and suggestions, as well as for continuous support; Prof. L. Battezzati (University of Torino, Italy) for present support; Prof. S. Rolfo, Dr. M. Coccia and Dr. G. Vitali (CERIS-CNR, Moncalieri, Italy) for scientific collaboration. The contribution of Prof. F. Malerba (CESPRI-KITES – Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy) for seminal ideas and revision of preliminary material is acknowledged. A preliminary version of this paper is published on the CERIS-CNR Working paper series: the editor and the anonymous referees who reviewed this version are also acknowledged. Directors of libraries “G. Ponzio” (Chemistry) and “I. Guareschi” (Pharmacy) of University of Torino are acknowledged for allowing extensive use of SCI Finder Scholar. Usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Chimica I.F.M. and NIS-Centre of Excellence, Università di Torino, via P. Giuria, 7, 10125, Turin, Italy

    Ugo Finardi

  2. National Research Council of Italy, CERIS-CNR, via Real Collegio, 30, 10024, Moncalieri, TO, Italy

    Ugo Finardi

Authors
  1. Ugo Finardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugo Finardi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finardi, U. Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics 89, 37–50 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0443-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0443-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Search

Navigation