IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v14y2020i4s1751157719303542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The golden eras of graphene science and technology: Bibliographic evidences from journal and patent publications

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen, Ai Linh
  • Liu, Wenyuan
  • Khor, Khiam Aik
  • Nanetti, Andrea
  • Cheong, Siew Ann

Abstract

Today’s scientific research is an expensive enterprise funded primarily by taxpayers’ and corporate groups’ monies. All nations want to discover fields of study that promise to create future industries, and dominate these by building up and securing scientific and technological expertise early. However, the conversion of scientific leadership into market dominance remains very much an alchemy. To gain insights into how science becomes technology, we focused on graphene (which shows promise in batteries, sensors, flexible displays and other technologies) as a case study. In particular, we asked whether research on the material is on track to deliver all its technological promises. To answer this question, we analyzed in this paper bibliometric records of scientific journal publications and patents related to graphene. While performing straightforward analyses at the aggregate and temporal level to do so, we stumbled upon evidences that suggest ‘Golden Eras’ of graphene science and technology in the recent past. To confirm this unexpected finding, we developed a novel simulation-based method to determine how the interest levels in graphene science and technology change with time. We then found compelling evidences that these interest levels peaked in 2010 and 2012 respectively, despite the continued growth of journal and patent publications in this area. This suggests that publication numbers in a research topic could sometimes give rise to false positives concerning its importance.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen, Ai Linh & Liu, Wenyuan & Khor, Khiam Aik & Nanetti, Andrea & Cheong, Siew Ann, 2020. "The golden eras of graphene science and technology: Bibliographic evidences from journal and patent publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:14:y:2020:i:4:s1751157719303542
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2020.101067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157719303542
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101067?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. Albert, M. B. & Avery, D. & Narin, F. & McAllister, P., 1991. "Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 251-259, June.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Ponomarev, Ilya V. & Williams, Duane E. & Hackett, Charles J. & Schnell, Joshua D. & Haak, Laurel L., 2014. "Predicting highly cited papers: A Method for Early Detection of Candidate Breakthroughs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-55.
    4. Xi Yang & Xiang Yu & Xin Liu, 2018. "Obtaining a Sustainable Competitive Advantage from Patent Information: A Patent Analysis of the Graphene Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2017. "The Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles across Fields of Research," NBER Working Papers 23447, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Wenyuan Liu & Andrea Nanetti & Siew Ann Cheong, 2017. "Knowledge evolution in physics research: An analysis of bibliographic coupling networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Achilladelis, Basil, 1993. "The dynamics of technological innovation: The sector of antibacterial medicines," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 279-308, August.
    8. Carpenter, Mark P. & Narin, Francis & Woolf, Patricia, 1981. "Citation rates to technologically important patents," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 160-163, October.
    9. Chen, Chaomei & Chen, Yue & Horowitz, Mark & Hou, Haiyan & Liu, Zeyuan & Pellegrino, Donald, 2009. "Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 191-209.
    10. Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2016. "Quantifying The Life Cycle Of Scholarly Articles Across Fields Of Economic Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1339-1355, April.
    11. Hamid Bouabid, 2011. "Revisiting citation aging: a model for citation distribution and life-cycle prediction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 199-211, July.
    12. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    13. Geng, Shengnan & Wang, Yuan & Zuo, Jian & Zhou, Zhihua & Du, Huibin & Mao, Guozhu, 2017. "Building life cycle assessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 176-184.
    14. Francis Narin & Kimberly S Hamilton & Dominic Olivastro, 1995. "Linkage between agency-supported research and patented industrial technology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 183-187, December.
    15. Ortega, José Luis, 2018. "The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 579-589.
    16. Achilladelis, Basil & Schwarzkopf, Albert & Cines, Martin, 1990. "The dynamics of technological innovation: The case of the chemical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-34, February.
    17. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    18. 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.
    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. Wang, Chang & Geng, Hongjun & Sun, Rui & Song, Huiling, 2022. "Technological potential analysis and vacant technology forecasting in the graphene field based on the patent data mining," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    2. Xiaoli Wang & Yun Liu & Lingdi Chen & Yifan Zhang, 2022. "Correlation Monitoring Method and model of Science-Technology-Industry in the AI Field: A Case of the Neural Network," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    3. Ai Linh Nguyen & Wenyuan Liu & Khiam Aik Khor & Andrea Nanetti & Siew Ann Cheong, 2022. "Strategic differences between regional investments into graphene technology and how corporations and universities manage patent portfolios," Papers 2208.03719, arXiv.org.

    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. Wang, Jean J. & Ye, Fred Y., 2021. "Probing into the interactions between papers and patents of new CRISPR/CAS9 technology: A citation comparison," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    2. Haupt, Reinhard & Kloyer, Martin & Lange, Marcus, 2007. "Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 387-398, April.
    3. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    4. R. J. W. Tussen & R. K. Buter & Th. N. van Leeuwen, 2000. "Technological Relevance of Science: An Assessment of Citation Linkages between Patents and Research Papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 389-412, February.
    5. Altuntas, Serkan & Dereli, Turkay & Kusiak, Andrew, 2015. "Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 249-262.
    6. Jungpyo Lee & So Young Sohn, 2017. "What makes the first forward citation of a patent occur earlier?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 279-298, October.
    7. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2001. "Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 35-54, January.
    8. Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli & Daniele Rotolo & Vito Albino, 2014. "Determinants of Patent Citations in Biotechnology: An Analysis of Patent Influence Across the Industrial and Organizational Boundaries," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-05, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. 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.
    10. Jordan A. Comins, 2015. "Data-mining the technological importance of government-funded patents in the private sector," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 425-435, August.
    11. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2008. "Radical versus Non-Radical Inventions," MERIT Working Papers 2008-036, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Min, Chao & Bu, Yi & Sun, Jianjun, 2021. "Predicting scientific breakthroughs based on knowledge structure variations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    13. Wood-Doughty, Alex & Bergstrom, Ted & Steigerwald, Douglas, 2017. "Do download reports reliably measure journal usage? Trusting the fox to count your Hens?," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1f221007, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    14. C. Gay & C. Le Bas, 2005. "Uses without too many abuses of patent citations or the simple economics of patent citations as a measure of value and flows of knowledge," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 333-338.
    15. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    16. Fusillo, Fabrizio, 2023. "Green Technologies and diversity in the knowledge search and output phases: Evidence from European Patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    17. Xia Fan & Wenjie Liu & Guilong Zhu, 2017. "Scientific linkage and technological innovation capabilities: international comparisons of patenting in the solar energy industry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 117-138, April.
    18. Chen, Lixin, 2017. "Do patent citations indicate knowledge linkage? The evidence from text similarities between patents and their citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 63-79.
    19. Jee, Su Jung & Kwon, Minji & Ha, Jung Moon & Sohn, So Young, 2019. "Exploring the forward citation patterns of patents based on the evolution of technology fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    20. Capponi, Giovanna & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2022. "Breakthrough innovations and where to find them," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    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:eee:infome:v:14:y:2020:i:4:s1751157719303542. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    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.