IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v103y2015i2d10.1007_s11192-015-1550-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inventor team size as a predictor of the future citation impact of patents

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Breitzman

    (1790 Analytics, LLC)

  • Patrick Thomas

    (1790 Analytics, LLC)

Abstract

Forward citations are widely recognized as a useful measure of the impact of patents upon subsequent technological developments. However, an inherent characteristic of forward citations is that they take time to accumulate. This makes them valuable for retrospective impact evaluations, but less helpful for prospective forecasting exercises. To overcome this, it would be desirable to have indicators that forecast future citations at the time a patent is issued. In this paper, we outline one such indicator, based on the size of the inventor teams associated with patents. We demonstrate that, on average, patents with eight or more co-inventors are cited significantly more frequently in their first 5 years than peer patents with fewer inventors. This result holds true across technologies, assignee type, citation source (examiner versus applicant), and after self-citations are accounted for. We hypothesize that inventor team size may be a reflection of the amount of resources committed by an organization to a given innovation, with more researchers attached to innovations regarded as having particular promise or value.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Breitzman & Patrick Thomas, 2015. "Inventor team size as a predictor of the future citation impact of patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(2), pages 631-647, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:103:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1550-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1550-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1550-5
    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/s11192-015-1550-5?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. Rosalie Ruegg & Patrick Thomas, 2009. "Tracing government-funded research in wind energy to commercial renewable power generation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 387-396, December.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    3. Connie K N Chang & Anthony Breitzman, 2009. "Using patents prospectively to identify emerging, high-impact technological clusters," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 357-364, December.
    4. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    5. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2000. "Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look," NBER Working Papers 7741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Blind, Knut & Cremers, Katrin & Mueller, Elisabeth, 2009. "The influence of strategic patenting on companies' patent portfolios," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 428-436, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Dietmar Harhoff & Francis Narin & F. M. Scherer & Katrin Vopel, 1999. "Citation Frequency And The Value Of Patented Inventions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(3), pages 511-515, August.
    9. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    10. Patrick Thomas & Anthony Breitzman, 2006. "A method for identifying hot patents and linking them to government-funded scientific research," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 145-152, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Chihmao Hsieh, 2011. "Explicitly searching for useful inventions: dynamic relatedness and the costs of connecting versus synthesizing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 381-404, February.
    13. Shyh-Jen Wang, 2007. "Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 509-522, June.
    14. Dag W. Aksnes, 2003. "A macro study of self-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 235-246, February.
    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. Lin-Yun Huang & Jian-Feng Cai & Tien-Chen Lee & Min-Hang Weng, 2020. "A Study on the Development Trends of the Energy System with Blockchain Technology Using Patent Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    2. Wang, Chun-Chieh & Lin, Jia-Tian & Chen, Dar-Zen & Lo, Szu-Chia, 2023. "A New Look at National Diversity of Inventor Teams within Organizations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    3. Su Jung Jee & Kerstin Hotte, 2024. "From catch-up to frontier: The utility model as a learning device to escape the middle-income trap," Papers 2408.14205, arXiv.org.
    4. Yixin Zhao & Qingqing Zong, 2022. "Understanding the inventor team size: A view from “The Rice Theory”," International Studies of Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 156-182, July.
    5. Song, Haoyang & Hou, Jianhua & Zhang, Yang, 2023. "The measurements and determinants of patent technological value: Lifetime, strength, breadth, and dispersion from the technology diffusion perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1).
    6. Xuan Liu & Shan Jiang & Hsinchun Chen & Catherine A. Larson & Mihail C. Roco, 2015. "Modeling knowledge diffusion in scientific innovation networks: an institutional comparison between China and US with illustration for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1953-1984, December.
    7. Cao, Xuanyu & Chen, Yan & Ray Liu, K.J., 2016. "A data analytic approach to quantifying scientific impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 471-484.
    8. Eric Joseph van Holm & Heyjie Jung & Eric W. Welch, 2021. "The impacts of foreignness and cultural distance on commercialization of patents," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 29-61, February.
    9. Stefano Basilico & Alberto Marzucchi & Sandro Montresor, 2024. "Combining digital and green technologies in regions: how to close the gap with respect to the frontier?," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2440, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Dec 2024.
    10. Jussi Heikkilä, 2019. "IPR gender gaps: a first look at utility model, design right and trademark filings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 869-883, March.
    11. Wang, Jieshu & Lobo, José, 2024. "Extensive growth of inventions: Evidence from U.S. patenting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    12. Yuan Zhou & Fang Dong & Yufei Liu & Zhaofu Li & JunFei Du & Li Zhang, 2020. "Forecasting emerging technologies using data augmentation and deep learning," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 1-29, April.
    13. Anthony Frigon & David L. Rigby, 2021. "Geographies of Knowledge Sourcing and the Value of Knowledge in Multilocational Firms," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2132, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2021.
    14. Wang, Lin & Tang, Yingkai & Chen, Yaozhi & Wang, Kun, 2021. "Be a better boss. Employee treatment, trust level and family business innovation: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    15. Jussi Heikkilä & Michael Verba, 2018. "The role of utility models in patent filing strategies: evidence from European countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 689-719, August.
    16. Juan C. Correa & Henry Laverde-Rojas & Julian Tejada & Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos, 2022. "The Sci-Hub effect on papers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 99-126, January.
    17. Noh, Heeyong & Lee, Sungjoo, 2020. "What constitutes a promising technology in the era of open innovation? An investigation of patent potential from multiple perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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. Breitzman, Anthony & Thomas, Patrick, 2015. "The Emerging Clusters Model: A tool for identifying emerging technologies across multiple patent systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 195-205.
    2. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2011. "The puzzle of patent value indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 33-62.
    3. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2017. "Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(6), pages 1360-1374, June.
    5. von Wartburg, Iwan & Teichert, Thorsten & Rost, Katja, 2005. "Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1591-1607, December.
    6. Nicolas van Zeebroeck, 2007. "Patents only live twice: a patent survival analysis in Europe," Working Papers CEB 07-028.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    7. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Dar-Zen Chen & Danqi Shen & Mona S. Wang & Fred Y. Ye, 2015. "Measuring technological performance of assignees using trace metrics in three fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 61-86, July.
    8. Jang, Hyun Jin & Woo, Han-Gyun & Lee, Changyong, 2017. "Hawkes process-based technology impact analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 511-529.
    9. Scott D. Bass & Lukasz A. Kurgan, 2010. "Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 217-241, February.
    10. Frietsch, Rainer & Neuhäusler, Peter & Michels, Carolin & Dornbusch, Friedrich, 2014. "Medical research at universities – An international comparison," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2014, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    11. Satoshi Yasukawa & Shingo Kano, 2014. "Validating the usefulness of examiners’ forward citations from the viewpoint of applicants’ self-selection during the patent application procedure," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 895-909, June.
    12. C. Gay & C. Le Bas & P. Patel & K. Touach, 2005. "The determinants of patent citations: an empirical analysis of French and British patents in the US," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 339-350.
    13. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Martínez, M. Ángeles, 2012. "Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 692-703.
    14. Chang, Ke-Chiun & Chen, Dar-Zen & Huang, Mu-Hsuan, 2012. "The relationships between the patent performance and corporation performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 131-139.
    15. Petros Gkotsis, 2015. "The capability of the EU R&D Scoreboard companies to develop Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. An assessment based on patent analysis," JRC Research Reports JRC95370, Joint Research Centre.
    16. Ahmad Barirani & Bruno Agard & Catherine Beaudry, 2013. "Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(3), pages 1111-1136, March.
    17. 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).
    18. Keijl, S. & Gilsing, V.A. & Knoben, J. & Duysters, G., 2016. "The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1061-1074.
    19. Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Duysters, Geert, 2010. "The technological origins of radical inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1051-1059, October.
    20. Petra Moser & Joerg Ohmstedt & Paul M. Rhode, 2016. "Patent Citations - An Analysis of Quality Differences and Citing Practices in Hybrid Corn," Working Papers 16-05, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.

    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:103:y:2015:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1550-5. 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.