IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i9d10.1007_s11192-024-05110-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the global and domestic technological impact of Chinese scientific output: a patent-to-paper citation analysis of science-technology linkage

Author

Listed:
  • Ziyou Teng

    (Tongji University
    City University of Hong Kong)

  • Xuezhong Zhu

    (Tongji University)

Abstract

Tracing the utilization of science in technological innovations, especially the fraction with regard to public research, is of major importance in science policy. We explore the evolution of the global and domestic technological impact of Chinese scientific output with a detailed analysis of 6,901,428 utility patents granted at USPTO from 1976 to 2020 and their 337,949 citations to Chinese scientific publications. The results show that Chinese scientific output plays an increasingly critical role in science-based innovations while its contributions to domestic and foreign technology are fluctuated over the period. The domestic use of Chinese research is shrinking in late 1990s but keeps increasing thereafter. The technological impact of Chinese scientific output varies in different technology sectors. The recent growing share of Chinese-invented technology in the citing patents is dominated by Chinese patents in digital communication. The time lag of domestic citations is smaller than foreign citations, which is partially owing to the self-citations of Chinese inventors. However, the contributions of self-citations to short knowledge diffusion times are heterogeneous across technology fields. The largest producer of the cited science is universities and the next is public research organizations. Companies account for a meager quantity of total citations and their proportion is shrinking since 2007. Specifically, private technology depends substantially on public research for scientific knowledge. A national bias is found in the scientific knowledge components of patents assigned to companies, which to a certain point indicates the area where academia and industry hold a close relationship in China and Chinese companies are specialized. Taken together, these findings provide a dynamic country- and sector-dependent linkage of Chinese scientific output to domestic and global technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziyou Teng & Xuezhong Zhu, 2024. "Measuring the global and domestic technological impact of Chinese scientific output: a patent-to-paper citation analysis of science-technology linkage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5181-5210, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05110-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05110-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05110-3
    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/s11192-024-05110-3?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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. Ke, Qing, 2018. "Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 706-717.
    5. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    6. Ke, Qing, 2020. "An analysis of the evolution of science-technology linkage in biomedicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    7. Mark A. Lemley & Bhaven Sampat, 2012. "Examiner Characteristics and Patent Office Outcomes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 817-827, August.
    8. Raf Guns & Linda Sīle & Joshua Eykens & Frederik T. Verleysen & Tim C. E. Engels, 2018. "A comparison of cognitive and organizational classification of publications in the social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1093-1111, August.
    9. Thed N. Leeuwen, 2009. "Strength and weakness of national science systems: A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(2), pages 389-408, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Hu, Mei-Chih & Mathews, John A., 2005. "National innovative capacity in East Asia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1322-1349, November.
    12. Persoon, P.G.J. & Bekkers, R.N.A. & Alkemade, F., 2020. "The science base of renewables," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Yindan Ye & Kevin De Moortel & Thomas Crispeels, 2020. "Network dynamics of Chinese university knowledge transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1228-1254, August.
    14. Hong, Wei & Su, Yu-Sung, 2013. "The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university–industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 454-464.
    15. Julie Callaert & Maikel Pellens & Bart Looy, 2014. "Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1617-1629, March.
    16. Caroline S. Wagner & Lin Zhang & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly cited publications: quality and impact of Chinese papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1825-1839, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Jeff Tollefson, 2018. "China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles," Nature, Nature, vol. 553(7689), pages 390-390, January.
    19. Jiancheng Guan & Ying He, 2007. "Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science — technology linkages," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 403-425, September.
    20. Michaël Bikard & Matt Marx, 2020. "Bridging Academia and Industry: How Geographic Hubs Connect University Science and Corporate Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3425-3443, August.
    21. María Bordons & Borja González-Albo & Javier Aparicio & Luz Moreno, 2015. "The influence of R&D intensity of countries on the impact of international collaborative research: evidence from Spain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1385-1400, February.
    22. Dang, Jianwei & Motohashi, Kazuyuki, 2015. "Patent statistics: A good indicator for innovation in China? Patent subsidy program impacts on patent quality," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 137-155.
    23. Ali Gazni & Zahra Ghaseminik, 2019. "The increasing dominance of science in the economy: Which nations are successful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1411-1426, September.
    24. Jasjit Singh, 2005. "Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(5), pages 756-770, May.
    25. Patelli, Aurelio & Cimini, Giulio & Pugliese, Emanuele & Gabrielli, Andrea, 2017. "The scientific influence of nations on global scientific and technological development," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1229-1237.
    26. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    27. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Jungkyu Suh, 2022. "Science and the Market for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(10), pages 7176-7201, October.
    28. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    29. Xiao-Ping Lei & Zhi-Yun Zhao & Xu Zhang & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang & Yun-Hua Zhao, 2012. "The inventive activities and collaboration pattern of university–industry–government in China based on patent analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 231-251, January.
    30. Manuel Trajtenberg & Adam B. Jaffe & Michael S. Fogarty, 2000. "Knowledge Spillovers and Patent Citations: Evidence from a Survey of Inventors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 215-218, May.
    31. Xia Gao & Jiancheng Guan & Ronald Rousseau, 2011. "Mapping collaborative knowledge production in China using patent co-inventorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 343-362, August.
    32. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    33. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    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. Ke, Qing, 2020. "An analysis of the evolution of science-technology linkage in biomedicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    2. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    3. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    6. Ke, Qing, 2018. "Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 706-717.
    7. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    8. 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.
    9. Fernández, Ana María & Ferrándiz, Esther & Medina, Jennifer, 2022. "The diffusion of energy technologies. Evidence from renewable, fossil, and nuclear energy patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    10. Arora, Ashish & Belenzon, Sharon & Dionisi, Bernardo, 2023. "First-mover advantage and the private value of public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    11. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Naomi Fukuzawa & Takanori Ida, 2016. "Science linkages between scientific articles and patents for leading scientists in the life and medical sciences field: the case of Japan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(2), pages 629-644, February.
    13. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    14. Sapsalis, Eleftherios & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno & Navon, Ran, 2006. "Academic versus industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1645, December.
    15. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    16. Leonardo Costa Ribeiro & Glenda Kruss & Gustavo Britto & Américo Tristão Bernardes & Eduardo Motta e Albuquerque, 2014. "A methodology for unveiling global innovation networks: patent citations as clues to cross border knowledge flows," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 61-83, October.
    17. Ali Gazni & Zahra Ghaseminik, 2019. "The increasing dominance of science in the economy: Which nations are successful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1411-1426, September.
    18. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Elena M. Tur, 2018. "Examiner trust in applicants to the European Patent Office: country specificities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1319-1348, December.
    19. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.

    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:129:y:2024:i:9:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05110-3. 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.