, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 505–525 | Cite as

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

  • Wolfgang GlänzelEmail author
  • Ping Zhou


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.


Biotechnology Publication activity International collaboration Citation impact Patent citation Science–technology linkage 


  1. Albert, A., Granadino, B., & Plaza, L. M. (2007). Scientific and technological performance evaluation of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in the field of Biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(1), 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balassa, B. (1965). On the appropriate interpretation of the revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banerjee, P., Gupta, B. M., & Garg, K. C. (2000). Patent statistics as indicators of competition an analysis of patenting in biotechnology. Scientometrics, 47(1), 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2002). Pajek-analysis and visualization of large networks. Graph Drawing, 2265, 477–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 513–521.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., Schubert, A. (1985), Scientometric indicators: A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact. (424 pp). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Czerwon, H. J., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). Eine quantitative Analyse der internationalen Publikationsaktivität auf dem Gebiet der Biotechnologie. Informatik, 36(4), 157–160.Google Scholar
  8. Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2), 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Looze, M. A. (1994). The application of scientometric tools to the analysis of a sector in plant biotechnologies: nitrogen fixation. Scientometrics, 30, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Looze, M. A., & Ramani, S. V. (1999). Biotechnology patent applications in Europe—A look at the difference between French, British, and German patent application trends. Nature Biotechnology, 17, 83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dominguez-Lacasa, I. (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 biotechnology. Scientometrics, 66(2), 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frame, D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143–148.Google Scholar
  13. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W. (2007). A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Characteristic scores and scales. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glänzel, W., Danell, R., & Persson, O. (2003a). The decline of Swedish neuroscience–decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator. Scientometrics, 57(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 59–76.Google Scholar
  17. Glänzel, W., & Gupta, B. M. (2008). Science in India. A bibliometric study of national and institutional research performance in 1991–2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(3), 42–48.Google Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., Janssens, F., & Thijs, B. (2009). A comparative analysis of publication activity and citation impact based on the core literature in bioinformatics. Scientometrics, 79(1), 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Schlemmer, B., du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Debackere, K., Veugelers, R. (2003b). “Biotechnology”—An Analysis based on Publications and Patents.
  21. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analyzing scientific networks through co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of Publication and patent statistics in studies on S and T Systems (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Janssens, F., Glänzel, W., de Moor, B. (2007). Dynamic hybrid clustering of bioinformatics by incorporating text mining and citation analysis. In P. Berkhin, R. Caruana, X. Wu, S. Gaffney (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’07) (pp. 360–369) San Jose, California, USA. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  24. Joly, P. B., & de Looze, M. A. (1999). Copropriété de brevets et coopération en R&D: une analyse dans les biotechnologies. Economie Appliquée, 52, 183–197.Google Scholar
  25. Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the European community’s biotechnology action programme (BAP): multinationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McMillan, G. S., & Hamilton, R. D. (2007). The public science base of US biotechnology: a citation-weighted approach. Scientometrics, 72(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer, M., Debackere, K., Glänzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics. doi:  10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3.
  30. Molatudi, M., & Pouris, A. (2006). Assessing the knowledge base for biotechnology in South Africa—A bibliometric analysis of South African microbiology and molecular biology and genetics research. Scientometrics, 68(1), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1995). Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5(3), 183–187.Google Scholar
  32. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nederhof, A. J. (1988). Changes in publication patterns of biotechnologists: An evaluation of the impact of government stimulation programs in six industrial nations. Scientometrics, 14(5–6), 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nordstrom, L. O. (1987). Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramani, S. V., & Delooze, M. A. (2002). Using patent statistics as knowledge base indicators in the biotechnology sectors: an application to France, Germany and the UK. Scientometrics, 54(3), 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. REIST-2. (1997), The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 1997. EUR 17639. European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
  38. Rip, A., & Courtial, J. P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6(6), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative-assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5–6), 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). World flash on basic research: International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 19(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1989). World flash on basic research: scientometric datafiles. A comprehensive set of indicators on 2649 journals and 96 countries in all major science fields and subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 16(1–6), 3–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas, S. M. (1992). The evaluation of plant biomass research: a case study of the problems inherent in bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 23(1), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (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, 70(2), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China Ranks Second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(1), 7–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for R & D Monitoring (ECOOM)Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty FBE, Department MSIKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of ChinaBeijingChina
  4. 4.Hungarian Academy of SciencesIRPSBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations