IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259453.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Wei Chang
  • Dar-Zen Chen
  • Mu-Hsuan Huang

Abstract

This study investigated whether 12 scientists who had received the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation balanced publishing and patenting activities. The results demonstrated that although the scientist were recognized for their contributions to science and technology, the majority of recipients were not prolific researchers, and some were not influential. Notably, one scientist had not been granted a single patent. This indicated that scientific and technological contributions may not necessarily correspond with influential scientific publications and patents. Moreover, only two scientists had filed for patents before publishing, and they also invested more time developing technological inventions. Most recipients were science- or technology-oriented scientists. Few scientists balanced their publishing and patenting activities, and demonstrated excellent research and technology performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Wei Chang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2021. "Do extraordinary science and technology scientists balance their publishing and patenting activities?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259453
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259453
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259453
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259453&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259453?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Gerlind Wallon & Anna Ledin, 2008. "Does the Committee Peer Review Select the Best Applicants for Funding? An Investigation of the Selection Process for Two European Molecular Biology Organization Programmes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-11, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Xiaoling Sun & Kun Ding, 2018. "Identifying and tracking scientific and technological knowledge memes from citation networks of publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1735-1748, September.
    5. Ho Fai Chan & Laura Gleeson & Benno Torgler, 2014. "Awards before and after the Nobel Prize: A Matthew effect and/or a ticket to one’s own funeral?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 210-220.
    6. Dag W. Aksnes, 2006. "Citation rates and perceptions of scientific contribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(2), pages 169-185, January.
    7. Arnold Verbeek & Koenraad Debackere & Marc Luwel & Petra Andries & Edwin Zimmermann & Filip Deleus, 2002. "Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 399-420, July.
    8. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    9. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 2018. "The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(3), pages 474-482, March.
    10. Yves Gingras & Vincent Larivière & Benoît Macaluso & Jean-Pierre Robitaille, 2008. "The Effects of Aging on Researchers' Publication and Citation Patterns," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(12), pages 1-8, December.
    11. Samreen Ayaz & Nayyer Masood, 2020. "Comparison of researchers’ impact indices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-15, May.
    12. Amin Mazloumian & Young-Ho Eom & Dirk Helbing & Sergi Lozano & Santo Fortunato, 2011. "How Citation Boosts Promote Scientific Paradigm Shifts and Nobel Prizes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-6, May.
    13. B. S. Kademani & V. L. Kalyane & Vijai Kumar & Lalit Mohan, 2005. "Nobel laureates: Their publication productivity, collaboration and authorship status," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(2), pages 261-268, January.
    14. Pentti Riikonen & Mauno Vihinen, 2008. "National research contributions: A case study on Finnish biomedical research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 207-222, November.
    15. Yves Gingras & Matthew L. Wallace, 2010. "Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 401-412, February.
    16. Susanne Beck & Maral Mahdad & Karin Beukel & Marion Poetz, 2019. "The Value of Scientific Knowledge Dissemination for Scientists—A Value Capture Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-23, July.
    17. Xiaojuan Liu & Mengxia Yu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2018. "Tracking research performance before and after receiving the Cheung Kong Scholars award: A case study of recipients in 2005," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 367-379.
    18. Michaela Trippl, 2013. "Scientific Mobility and Knowledge Transfer at the Interregional and Intraregional Level," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(10), pages 1653-1667, November.
    19. 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.
    20. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    21. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Emanuela Reale, 2019. "Peer review versus bibliometrics: Which method better predicts the scholarly impact of publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 537-554, October.
    22. Olgica Nedić & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2016. "Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 15-26, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Ho Fai Chan & Ali Sina Önder & Benno Torgler, 2015. "Do Nobel laureates change their patterns of collaboration following prize reception?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2215-2235, December.
    4. Yan Qi & Xin Zhang & Zhengyin Hu & Bin Xiang & Ran Zhang & Shu Fang, 2022. "Choosing the right collaboration partner for innovation: a framework based on topic analysis and link prediction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5519-5550, September.
    5. Elisabeth Maria Schlagberger & Lutz Bornmann & Johann Bauer, 2016. "At what institutions did Nobel laureates do their prize-winning work? An analysis of biographical information on Nobel laureates from 1994 to 2014," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 723-767, November.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Iván Aranzales & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2023. "Finally! How time lapse in Nobel Prize reception affects emotionality in the Nobel Prize banquet speeches," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4089-4115, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Berna Beyhan & M. Teoman Pamukçu & Erkan Erdil, 2011. "Individual and Organizational Aspects of University-Industry Relations in Nanotechnology: The Turkish Case," STPS Working Papers 1106, STPS - Science and Technology Policy Studies Center, Middle East Technical University, revised Jun 2011.
    11. Wen Lou & Jiangen He & Lingxin Zhang & Zhijie Zhu & Yongjun Zhu, 2023. "Support behind the scenes: the relationship between acknowledgement, coauthor, and citation in Nobel articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5767-5790, October.
    12. Jingda Ding & Yifan Chen & Chao Liu, 2023. "Exploring the research features of Nobel laureates in Physics based on the semantic similarity measurement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5247-5275, September.
    13. Mariia Shkolnykova, 2021. "Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-54, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    16. Jelnov, Pavel & Weiss, Yoram, 2022. "Influence in economics and aging," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    17. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    18. Thomas Heinze & Joel Emanuel Fuchs, 2022. "National and organizational patterns of Nobel laureate careers in physiology/medicine, physics, and chemistry," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7273-7288, December.
    19. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    20. Pao-Long Chang & Chao-Chan Wu & Hoang-Jyh Leu, 2010. "Using patent analyses to monitor the technological trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission display," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 5-19, January.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0259453. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.