, Volume 111, Issue 1, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Patent research in the field of library and information science: Less useful or difficult to explore?



Patents and relevant topics are gaining momentum in economic analysis and scientific research with the rapid global intellectual property filings growth. However, a corresponding increase seems to be unspectacular in patent research publications, especially under the category of information science and library science. This paper provided a retrospect to the existing studies on patents collected from web of science and emphatically characterized the current situation through performing a series of bibliometric analysis. Prominent authors and institutions from mainland China, Taiwan and Belgium have carried out various studies on patent separately or jointly. Topics involved in 884 journal papers are reclassified from perspectives of the development, application and analysis of patents based on the results of keyword co-occurrence and typical publications in each stage. The final, but the novel part of this study was a sentence-by-sentence analysis of conclusive and citing ideas of recent publications, for tracing problems and potential researchable topics and indicating that patent research still has more spaces to move up.


Patent research Bibliometric analysis Library and information science Conclusive and citing parts 


  1. Abbas, A., Zhang, L., & Khan, S. U. (2014). A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis. World Patent Information, 37, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, B. P., & Moitra, S. D. (2001). Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation, 21(4), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker, J., Verhoeven, D., Zhang, L., & Van Looy, B. (2016). Patent citation indicators: One size fits all? Scientometrics, 106(1), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breitzman, A. F., & Mogee, M. E. (2002). The many applications of patent analysis. Journal of Information Science, 28(3), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruck, P., Réthy, I., Szente, J., Tobochnik, J., & Érdi, P. (2016). Recognition of emerging technology trends: Class-selective study of citations in the U.S. patent citation network. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1465–1475. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1899-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castriotta, M., & Di Guardo, M. C. (2016). Disentangling the automotive technology structure: A patent co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 107(2), 819–837. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1862-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, Y. W., Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2071–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Melo-Martín, I. (2013). Patenting and the gender gap: Should women be encouraged to patent more? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Debray, M. R. (1958). Patent classification. Aslib Proceedings, 10(12), 316–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietz, J. S., Chompalov, I., Bozeman, B., Lane, E. O. N., & Park, J. (2000). Using the curriculum vita to study the career paths of scientists and engineers: An exploratory assessment. Scientometrics, 49(3), 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellis, P., Hepburn, G., & Oppenhein, C. (1978). Studies on patent citation networks. Journal of Documentation, 34(1), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Turina, E. (2012). European research in the field of production technology and manufacturing systems: An exploratory analysis through publications and patents. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 62(1–4), 329–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukuzawa, N., & Ida, T. (2016). Science linkages between scientific articles and patents for leading scientists in the life and medical sciences field: The case of Japan. Scientometrics, 106(2), 629–644. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1795-z.
  14. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 257–276). Springer: Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Gök, A., Waterworth, A., & Shapira, P. (2015). Use of web mining in studying innovation. Scientometrics, 102(1), 653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta, V. (1999). Technological trends in the area of fullerenes using bibliometric analysis of patents. Scientometrics, 44(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han, Y. J. (2007). Measuring industrial knowledge stocks with patents and papers. Journal of Informetrics, 1(4), 269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haylor, L. (1962). Scientific information and patents. In Aslib proceedings (Vol. 14(10), pp. 342–349). MCB UP Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Hu, X., & Rousseau, R. (2015). A simple approach to describe a company’s innovative activities and their technological breadth. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1401–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, M. H., Dong, H. R., & Chen, D. Z. (2012). Globalization of collaborative creativity through crossborder patent activities. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 226–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang, M. H., Yang, H. W., & Chen, D. Z. (2015). Industry–academia collaboration in fuel cells: A perspective from paper and patent analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1301–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hung, W. C., Ding, C. G., Wang, H. J., Lee, M. C., & Lin, C. P. (2015). Evaluating and comparing the university performance in knowledge utilization for patented inventions. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1269–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeong, S., Kim, J. C., & Choi, J. Y. (2015). Technology convergence: What developmental stage are we in? Scientometrics, 104(3), 841–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ju, Y., & Sohn, S. Y. (2015). Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining. Scientometrics, 102(1), 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaback, S. M. (1983). Online patent searching: The realities. Online, 7(4), 22–31.Google Scholar
  26. Karki, M. (1997). Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool. World Patent Information, 19(4), 269–272.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Mapping the institutional collaboration network of strategic management research: 1980–2014. Scientometrics, 109(1), 203–226. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1894-5.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lei, X. P., Zhao, Z. Y., Zhang, X., Chen, D. Z., Huang, M. H., Zheng, J., et al. (2013). Technological collaboration patterns in solar cell industry based on patent inventors and assignees analysis. Scientometrics, 96(2), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewensohn, D., Dahlborg, C., Kowalski, J., & Lundin, P. (2015). Applying patent survival analysis in the academic context. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 197–212. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvu037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L. (2015). Can technology life-cycles be indicated by diversity in patent classifications? The crucial role of variety. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1441–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., Kushnir, D., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on international patent classification (IPC). Scientometrics, 98(3), 1583–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41(6), 1462–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2013). The differences between latent topics in abstracts and citation contexts of citing papers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(3), 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liu, S. H., Liao, H. L., Pi, S. M., & Hu, J. W. (2011). Development of a patent retrieval and analysis platform—a hybrid approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7864–7868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ma, J., & Porter, A. L. (2015). Analyzing patent topical information to identify technology pathways and potential opportunities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 811–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mauleón, E., Daraio, C., & Bordons, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences in patenting in Spain. Research Evaluation, 23(1), 62–78. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvt030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messinis, G. (2011). Triadic citations, country biases and patent value: The case of pharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 89(3), 813–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 1057–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakamura, H., Suzuki, S., Kajikawa, Y., & Osawa, M. (2015). The effect of patent family information in patent citation network analysis: A comparative case study in the drivetrain domain. Scientometrics, 104(2), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Narin, F. (1977). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.
  41. Narin, F. (1994). Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30(1), 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Narin, F., & Hamilton, K. S. (1996). Bibliometric performance measures. Scientometrics, 36(3), 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Noruzi, A., & Abdekhoda, M. (2012). Mapping Iranian patents based on international patent classification (IPC), from 1976 to 2011. Scientometrics, 93(3), 847–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Using patent counts for crosscountry comparisons of technology output. STI Review, 27. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  45. Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pavitt, K. (1985). Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems. Scientometrics, 7(1–2), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pfeffer, H., Koller, H. R., & Marden, E. C. (1959). A first approach to patent searching procedures on standard’s electronic automatic computer (SEAC). American Documentation, 10(1), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ravikumar, S., Agrahari, A., & Singh, S. N. (2015). Mapping the intellectual structure of scientometrics: A co-word analysis of the journal scientometrics (2005–2010). Scientometrics, 102(1), 929–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmoch, U., & Schnöring, T. (1994). Technological strategies of telecommunications equipment manufacturers: A patent analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 18(5), 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schubert, T. (2011). Assessing the value of patent portfolios: An international country comparison. Scientometrics, 88(3), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sedighi, M. (2016). Application of word co-occurrence analysis method in mapping of the scientific fields (Case study: the field of informetrics). Library Review, 65(1/2). doi:10.1108/LR-07-2015-0075.
  52. Stock, W. G., & Stock, M. (2013). Handbook of information science. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  53. Sung, H. Y., Wang, C. C., Chen, D. Z., & Huang, M. H. (2014). A comparative study of patent counts by the inventor country and the assignee country. Scientometrics, 100(2), 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tseng, Y. H., Lin, C. J., & Lin, Y. I. (2007). Text mining techniques for patent analysis. Information Processing and Management, 43(5), 1216–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang, S. J. (2007). Factors to evaluate a patent in addition to citations. Scientometrics, 71(3), 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. WIPO. (2015). World intellectual property indicators. Economics & Statistics Series. WIPO Publication, 941E.Google Scholar
  57. Wong, C. Y., & Wang, L. (2015). Trajectories of science and technology and their co-evolution in BRICS: Insights from publication and patent analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, G. C., Li, G., Li, C. Y., Zhao, Y. H., Zhang, J., Liu, T., et al. (2015). Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1319–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yoon, J. (2015). The evolution of South Korea’s innovation system: Moving towards the triple helix model? Scientometrics, 104(1), 265–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yoon, J., Choi, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Invention property-function network analysis of patents: A case of silicon-based thin film solar cells. Scientometrics, 86(3), 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zelnick, A. (1957). Copyright and design patent protection against importation of piratical merchandise. Bulletin Copyright Soc’y USA, 5, 261.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department 2German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations