Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 715–728 | Cite as

Refining search terms for nanotechnology

  • Alan L. Porter
  • Jan Youtie
  • Philip Shapira
  • David J. Schoeneck
Perspectives

Abstract

The ability to delineate the boundaries of an emerging technology is central to obtaining an understanding of the technology’s research paths and commercialization prospects. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the case of nanotechnology (hereafter identified as “nano”) given its current rapid growth and multidisciplinary nature. (Under the rubric of nanotechnology, we also include nanoscience and nanoengineering.) Past efforts have utilized several strategies, including simple term search for the prefix nano, complex lexical and citation-based approaches, and bootstrapping techniques. This research introduces a modularized Boolean approach to defining nanotechnology which has been applied to several research and patenting databases. We explain our approach to downloading and cleaning data, and report initial results. Comparisons of this approach with other nanotechnology search formulations are presented. Implications for search strategy development and profiling of the nanotechnology field are discussed.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis Nanoscience and engineering Nanotechnology publication Nanopatenting Research profiling Search strategies Nanoinformatics 

References

  1. Alencar MSM, Porter AL, Antunes AMS (2007) Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technol Forecast Soc Change, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassecoulard E, Lelu A, Zitt M (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drexler E, Peterson C (1991) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. William Morrow and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. ETC Group (2003) From genomes to atoms: the big down. The etc Group, Winnipeg, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems, Innovations Research (2002) Search methodology for mapping nanotechnology patents. Karlsruhe, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Heinze T, Shapira P, Senker J, Kuhlmann S (2007) Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics 70(1):125–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. J Nanoparticle Res 5(3-4):333–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang Z, Chen C, Chen A-K, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanoparticle Res 6(4):325–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Khushf G (2004) A hierarchical architecture for nano-scale science and technology: taking stock of the claims about science made by advocates of NBIC convergence. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff R, Lau CGY (2007) Structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology research literature. Available at http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/33/332/techno_watch_publications_textmine.asp. Cited 7 June 2007Google Scholar
  12. Kostoff RN, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006) The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanoparticle Res 8(2):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kostoff RN, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006a) The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanoparticle Res 8(2):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006b) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanoparticle Res 8(3–4):301–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. PCAST (2005) The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 5 years. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the PresidentGoogle Scholar
  16. Porter AL, Cunningham SW (2005) Tech mining: exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Rafols I, Meyer M (2007) Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Madrid, June, 2007. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/irafols. Cited 7 June 2007
  18. Zitt M, Bassecoulard E (2006) Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inform Processing Management 42(6):1513–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan L. Porter
    • 1
  • Jan Youtie
    • 2
  • Philip Shapira
    • 1
    • 3
  • David J. Schoeneck
    • 4
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Enterprise Innovation InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU), Program in Nanotechnology Research and Innovation Systems AnalysisTempeUSA
  4. 4.Search Technology, Inc.NorcrossUSA

Personalised recommendations