IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v86y2011i2d10.1007_s11192-010-0269-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Wolfgang Glänzel

    (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
    Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
    IRPS)

  • Ping Zhou

    (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
    Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
    Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)

Abstract

The study focuses on publication activity, citation impact and citation links between publications and patents in biotechnology. The European Union (EU), US, Japan and China are the most important global players. However, the landscape is changing since the EU and the US are losing ground because of challenges from a group of emerging economies. National profiles differ between the two groups of main players and upcoming countries; the focus on red biotechnology in the US and Europe is contrasted by propensity for white and green technology in Asia. Furthermore, the subject profile of biotechnology papers citing patents and cited by patents as well as the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in scientific literature is explored. Papers that cite patents tend to reflect propensity towards white biotechnology while patent-cited publications have a higher relative share in red biotechnology. No significant difference concerning the citation impact of publications ‘citing patents’ and ‘not citing patents’ can be found. This is contrasted by the observation that patent-cited papers perform distinctly better in terms of standard bibliometric indicators than comparable publications that are not linked to technology in this direction.

Suggested Citation

  • Wolfgang Glänzel & Ping Zhou, 2011. "Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(2), pages 505-525, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:86:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0269-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6
    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/s11192-010-0269-6?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. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    2. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    3. Armando Albert & Begoña Granadino & Luis M. Plaza, 2007. "Scientific and technological performance evaluation of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in the field of Biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(1), pages 41-51, January.
    4. Shyama V. Ramani & Marie-Angele de Looze, 2002. "Using patent statistics as knowledge base indicators in the biotechnology sectors: An application to France, Germany and the U.K," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 319-346, July.
    5. Iciar Dominguez-Lacasa, 2006. "Capturing the changes in the knowledge base underlying drug discovery and development in the 20th century and the adjustment of Bayer, Hoechst, Schering AG and E. Merck to the advent of modern biotech," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 345-364, February.
    6. Parthasarathi Banerjee & B. M. Gupta & K. C. Garg, 2000. "Patent Statistics as Indicators of Competition an Analysis of Patenting in Biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 95-116, January.
    7. Wolfgang Glänzel & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 415-428, October.
    8. Wolfgang Glänzel & Rickard Danell & Olle Persson, 2003. "The decline of Swedish neuroscience: Decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 197-213, June.
    9. G. Steven McMillan & Robert D. Hamilton, 2007. "The public science base of US biotechnology: A citation-weighted approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 3-10, July.
    10. Bart Looy & Tom Magerman & Koenraad Debackere, 2007. "Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 441-458, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Jacqueline Leta & Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2006. "Science in Brazil. Part 2: Sectoral and institutional research profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(1), pages 87-105, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Wolfgang Glänzel & András Schubert, 2003. "A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(3), pages 357-367, March.
    15. Wolfgang Glänzel & Frizo Janssens & Bart Thijs, 2009. "A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(1), pages 109-129, April.
    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. Benedita Marta Gomes Costa & Edilson da Silva Pedro & Gorete Ribeiro Macedo, 2013. "Scientific collaboration in biotechnology: the case of the northeast region in Brazil," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 571-592, May.
    2. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Isabella Tamine Parra Miranda & Juliana Moletta & Bruno Pedroso & Luiz Alberto Pilatti & Claudia Tania Picinin, 2021. "A Review on Green Technology Practices at BRICS Countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    5. Lili Yuan & Yanni Hao & Minglu Li & Chunbing Bao & Jianping Li & Dengsheng Wu, 2018. "Who are the international research collaboration partners for China? A novel data perspective based on NSFC grants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 401-422, July.
    6. H. Martinez & A. Jaime & J. Camacho, 2014. "Biotechnology profile analysis in Colombia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1789-1804, December.
    7. 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).
    8. Munan Li, 2015. "A novel three-dimension perspective to explore technology evolution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1679-1697, December.
    9. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Matthew Bickley, 2022. "The high scholarly value of grey literature before and during Covid-19," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3489-3504, June.
    10. Lei Wang & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2015. "Characteristics of international collaboration in sport sciences publications and its influence on citation impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 843-862, November.
    11. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2018. "The role of baseline granularity for benchmarking citation impact. The case of CSS profiles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 521-536, July.
    12. Anna Pohle & Knut Blind & Dmitry Neustroev, 2018. "The Impact of International Management Standards on Academic Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. 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.

    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. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    2. 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.
    3. Xu, Haiyun & Winnink, Jos & Yue, Zenghui & Liu, Ziqiang & Yuan, Guoting, 2020. "Topic-linked innovation paths in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Ming-Chao Huang & Shih-Chieh Fang & Shao-Chi Chang, 2011. "Tracking R&D behavior: bibliometric analysis of drug patents in the Orange Book," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 805-818, September.
    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. 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.
    9. Sung, Hui-Yun & Wang, Chun-Chieh & Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Measuring science-based science linkage and non-science-based linkage of patents through non-patent references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 488-498.
    10. Ping Zhou & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2010. "In-depth analysis on China’s international cooperation in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 597-612, March.
    11. Xiaozan Lyu & Ping Zhou & Loet Leydesdorff, 2020. "Eco-system mapping of techno-science linkages at the level of scholarly journals and fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2037-2055, September.
    12. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    13. Robert Dalpé, 2002. "Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 55(2), pages 189-213, August.
    14. Huang, Mu-Hsuan & Yang, Hsiao-Wen & Chen, Dar-Zen, 2015. "Increasing science and technology linkage in fuel cells: A cross citation analysis of papers and patents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 237-249.
    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. 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).
    17. Wolfgang Glänzel & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 415-428, October.
    18. Martin Meyer & Tatiana Siniläinen & Jan Timm Utecht, 2003. "Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 321-350, October.
    19. Xu, Haiyun & Yue, Zenghui & Pang, Hongshen & Elahi, Ehsan & Li, Jing & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Integrative model for discovering linked topics in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. 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.

    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:86:y:2011:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-010-0269-6. 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.