IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v101y2014i2d10.1007_s11192-014-1394-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

International comparative study on nanofiltration membrane technology based on relevant publications and patents

Author

Listed:
  • Lihua Zhai

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Yuntao Pan

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Yu Guo

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Zheng Ma

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

  • Fei Bi

    (Zhejiang University)

Abstract

This study adopts a bibliometric approach to quantitatively assess current research trends in nanofiltration membrane technology (NFM), a new membrane separation technology widely used in various fields. It analyses scientific papers published between 1988–2011 in all journals contained in the Science Citation Index and patent data with the same time span from the Derwent patent database. The study examines developments in basic NFM research and technological innovations. Over the past 24 years, there has been a notable growth in publication outputs. Compared with other countries, China exhibited a rapid growth, particularly from 2000–2011, with its total number of papers ranking second only to the United States (US). Chinese NFM papers focus on energy and agriculture, while the US focuses on biochemistry and molecular biology. China holds the most global NFM patents, with rapid growth in patent numbers from 2005–2011. China, the US and Japan together hold 78 % of the total global NFM patents and have a strong technological advantage in water treatment and separation technology. Although there are four Chinese institutions in the top 10 patentee list, most are application patents that focus on the integrated application of existing nanofiltration membrane. In contrast the patents owned by foreign patentees are mostly research patents involving technology innovations of the nanofiltration membrane itself. Therefore, NFM research capacity in China should be further strengthened to maximize the advantages gained via research to date.

Suggested Citation

  • Lihua Zhai & Yuntao Pan & Yu Guo & Zheng Ma & Fei Bi, 2014. "International comparative study on nanofiltration membrane technology based on relevant publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1361-1374, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1394-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1394-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1394-4
    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/s11192-014-1394-4?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. Jennifer Keiser & Jürg Utzinger, 2005. "Trends in the core literature on tropical medicine: a bibliometric analysis from 1952-2002," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(3), pages 351-365, March.
    2. Tian, Yangge & Wen, Cheng & Hong, Song, 2008. "Global scientific production on GIS research by bibliometric analysis from 1997 to 2006," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 65-74.
    3. Szu-chia S. Lo, 2010. "Scientific linkage of science research and technology development: a case of genetic engineering research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 109-120, January.
    4. Bessen, James, 2008. "The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 932-945, June.
    5. Li Ying Yang & Ting Yue & Jie Lan Ding & Tao Han, 2012. "A comparison of disciplinary structure in science between the G7 and the BRIC countries by bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 497-516, 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. Shu-Hao Chang, 2018. "A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 951-970, March.
    2. Yunrong Dai & Yonghui Song & Hongjie Gao & Siyu Wang & Yu Yuan, 2015. "Bibliometric analysis of research progress in membrane water treatment technology from 1985 to 2013," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 577-591, October.
    3. Tianlong Zheng & Juan Wang & Qunhui Wang & Chunhong Nie & Zhining Shi & Xiaona Wang & Zhen Gao, 2016. "A bibliometric analysis of micro/nano-bubble related research: current trends, present application, and future prospects," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 53-71, October.

    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. Cinzia Daraio & Francesco Fabbri & Giulia Gavazzi & Maria Grazia Izzo & Luca Leuzzi & Giammarco Quaglia & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2018. "Assessing the interdependencies between scientific disciplinary profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1785-1803, September.
    2. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    3. Diemer, Andreas & Regan, Tanner, 2022. "No inventor is an island: Social connectedness and the geography of knowledge flows in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    4. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    5. Lee, Changyong & Jeon, Daeseong & Ahn, Joon Mo & Kwon, Ohjin, 2020. "Navigating a product landscape for technology opportunity analysis: A word2vec approach using an integrated patent-product database," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    6. Kaelo Mpho Ntwaepelo, 2021. "The Effects of Macroprudential and Monetary Policy Shocks in BRICS economies," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2021-20, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    7. Iazzolino Gianpaolo & Migliano Giuseppe, 2015. "The Valuation of a Patent through the Real Options Approach: A Tutorial," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 99-116, January.
    8. Marie-Violaine Tatry & Dominique Fournier & Benoît Jeannequin & Françoise Dosba, 2014. "EU27 and USA leadership in fruit and vegetable research: a bibliometric study from 2000 to 2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 2207-2222, March.
    9. Grönqvist, Charlotta, 2009. "Empirical studies on the private value of Finnish patents," Bank of Finland Scientific Monographs, Bank of Finland, volume 0, number sm2009_041, July.
    10. Xuefeng Wang & Shuo Zhang & Yuqin liu, 2022. "ITGInsight–discovering and visualizing research fronts in the scientific literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6509-6531, November.
    11. Mark Schankerman & Florian Schuett, 2022. "Patent Screening, Innovation, and Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 89(4), pages 2101-2148.
    12. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "Long Live Patents: the Increasing Life Expectancy of Patent Applications and its Determinants," Review of Economics and Institutions, Università di Perugia, vol. 2(3).
    13. Kim, Jinyoung, 2017. "Racing against Time in Research: A Study of the 1995 U.S. Patent Law Amendment," IZA Discussion Papers 10815, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Christos Agiakloglou & Kyriakos Drivas & Dimitris Karamanis, 2016. "Individual inventors and market potentials: Evidence from US patents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 147-156.
    15. David S. Abrams & Ufuk Akcigit & Jillian Grennan, 2013. "Patent Value and Citations: Creative Destruction or Strategic Disruption?," NBER Working Papers 19647, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Leonard I. Nakamura, 2010. "Intangible Assets And National Income Accounting," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 56(s1), pages 135-155, June.
    17. Jyun-Cheng Wang & Cheng-hsin Chiang & Shu-Wei Lin, 2010. "Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 735-748, September.
    18. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Huang, Wei-Tzu & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2014. "Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 241-251.
    19. Marc Baudry & Adrien Hervouet, 2017. "The private value of plant variety protection and the impact of exemption rules," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 202-226, April.
    20. Slavo Radosevic & Esin Yoruk, 2014. "Are there global shifts in the world science base? Analysing the catching up and falling behind of world regions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1897-1924, December.

    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:101:y:2014:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1394-4. 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.