, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 331–343 | Cite as

A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers

  • Jiancheng Guan
  • Gangbo Wang


This paper explores the relationship between patenting and publishing in the field of nanotechnology for Chinese universities. With their growing patents, Chinese universities are becoming main technological source for nanotechnology development that is extremely important in China. Matching names of patentees to names of research paper authors in Chinese universities, we find 6,321 authors with patents, i.e. inventor–authors, and 65,001 without any patent. Research performance is measured using three indicators—publication counts, total citations and h-index received by each researcher. It is found that research performance of authors who are also inventors holding patents is better than that of those authors who do not have a patent, and that most of high quality research is performed by inventor–authors. Our findings indicate that patent-oriented research may produce better results.


University patenting Nanotechnology Inventor–authors Bibliometrics 



This research is funded by National Social Science Foundation of China (Project No. 08BJY031), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 70773006) and Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project (Project No. B210). The authors are very grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewer and Prof. T. Braun. Prof. J. Schleich, Prof. J.Kohl and Mr. K. Ken Wang are also very grateful indeed for their carefully English corrections of the article.


  1. Bai, C. L. (2005). Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science, 309(5731), 61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2006). An informetric model for the Hirsch-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36(6), 880–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research out-put. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jin, B., Rousseau, R., & Sun, X. (2005). Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kostoff, R. N., Barth, R. B., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2008). Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 53(8), 1272–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics, 58(2): 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, X., Lin, Y., Chen, H., & Roco, M. C. (2007). Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(6), 977–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer, M. (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, 35(10), 1646–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ministry of Education. (1999). The regulation regarding the protection and management of intellectual properties in higher education institutions. Act 3, No. 8120.Google Scholar
  18. Moed, H. F. (2002). Measuring China’s research performance using the science citation index. Scientometrics, 53(3), 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. PCAST (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at 5 years. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President.Google Scholar
  20. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementFudan UniversityShangaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of ManagementBeijing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations