Skip to main content
Log in

Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Co-authorship analysis is a well-established tool in bibliometric analysis. It can be used at various levels to trace collaborative links between individuals, organisations, or countries. Increasingly, informetric methods are applied to patent data. It has been shown for another method that bibliometric tools cannot be applied without difficulty. This is due to the different process in which a patent is filed, examined, and granted and a scientific paper is submitted, refereed and published. However, in spite of the differences, there are also parallels between scholarly papers and patents. For instance, both papers and patents are the result of an intellectual effort, both disclose relevant information, and both are subject to a process of examination. Given the similarities, we shall raise the question as to which extent one can transfer co-authorship analysis to patent data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhattacharya, S., Khan, M. T. R. (2001), Monitoring technology trends through patent analysis: A case study of thin film. Research Evaluation, 10 (1): 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., Kretschmer, H., Meyer, M. (2003), Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58 (2): 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., Meyer, M. (2003), Large firms and the science-technology interface-Patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films. Scientometrics, 58 (2): 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Laget, P. (2004), Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public-private, EU-US R & D partnerships. R & D Management, 34 (1): 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danell, R., Persson, O. (2003), Regional R & D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix, Scientometrics, 58 (2): 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B. R. C. (2000), The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29 (2): 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GlÄnzel, W. (2001), National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51 (1): 69–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (2001), Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50 (2): 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GlÄnzel, W., Schubert, A. (2004), Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship, In: H. MOED, W.

  • GlÄnzel, U. Schmoch (Eds), Handbook of Bibliometric Indicators for Science and Technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

  • Katz, J. S., Martin, B. R. (1997), What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, H. (1997), Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges. Scientometrics, 40 (3): 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2001), What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11 (1): 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G., Persson, O. (1996), Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36 (3): 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000a), What is special about patent citations? Scientometrics, 48 (2): 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000b), Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29 (3): 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. S. (2001), Between Technology and Science-Exploring an Emerging Field. Knowledge Flows and Networking on the Nano-scale. DPhil thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2003), Are academic patents an indicator of useful university research? Research Evaluation, 12 (1): 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., SinilÄinen, T., Utecht, J. T. (2003), Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators-A study of university-related patents and a survey of inventors. Scientometrics, 58 (2): 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Stevens, K., Whitlow, E. S. (1991), Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21 (3): 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1998), The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy, 27 (8): 793–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. De Solla (1965), Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historio-graphy. Technology and Culture, 6 (4): 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. De Solla (1984), The science/technology relationship, the craft of experimental science, and policy for the improvement of high technology innovation. Research Policy, 13 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R. D. (1995), Patents as Scientific and Technical Literature. The Scarecrow Press: Metuchen, NJ and London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M., Bhattacharya, S. Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration. Scientometrics 61, 443–456 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045120.04489.80

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045120.04489.80

Keywords

Navigation