Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems

Abstract

Methods to link academic research achievements with innovative industries have gained considerable awareness worldwide in recent years. Subsequently, responding to industries’ demand to reinforce the linkage between scientific research and industries is an issue awaiting urgent resolution for the government. Previous scientific pertaining to the linkage between scientific fields and (academic papers) technological fields (technology patents) primarily focus on non-patent research or university–industry collaboration. However, these studies failed to highlight the type of linkages between science and technological fields. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to identify the core scientific fields in different technological fields. In addition to the proposed network maps linking scientific and technological fields, this study also identified the core scientific fields for patent development, including materials science, multidisciplinary; engineering, chemical; physics, applied; nanoscience and nanotechnology; and chemistry, physical. Due to the scarcity of research pertaining to the linkage of scientific fields and technological fields, the government, research and development units, and universities lack a framework for linking fundamental scientific research with the development of industry technologies. Therefore, in this study, we used an author–inventor network to analyze this research topic, expecting that the results can serve as a reference for further research.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Albino, V., Ardito, L., Dangelico, R. M., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2014). Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis. Applied Energy, 135, 836–854.

  2. Alessandrini, M., Klose, K., & Pepper, M. S. (2013). University entrepreneurship in South Africa: Developments in technology transfer practices. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 205–214.

  3. Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.

  4. Basberg, B. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 131–141.

  5. Bass, S. D., & Kurgan, L. A. (2010). Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 82(2), 217–241.

  6. Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). Patents and publications: The lexical connection. 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 of S&T systems (pp. 665–694). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  7. Bodas Freitas, I. M., Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2013). Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions. Research Policy, 42(1), 50–62.

  8. Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarily and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.

  9. Bonvillian, W. B. (2014). The new model innovation agencies: An overview. Science & Public Policy, 41(4), 425–437.

  10. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2008). Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 173–182.

  11. Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26.

  12. Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). university–industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.

  13. Casper, S. (2013). The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy, 42(8), 1313–1324.

  14. Choe, H., & Lee, D. H. (2017). The structure and change of the research collaboration network in Korea (2000–2011): Network analysis of joint patents. Scientometrics, 111(2), 917–939.

  15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

  16. Fenga, H. I., Chena, C. S., Wanga, C. H., & Chiang, H. C. (2012). The role of intellectual capital and university technology transfer offices in university-based technology transfer. The Service Industries Journal, 32(6), 899–917.

  17. Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.

  18. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). Anew classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.

  19. Godin, B. (1995). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25(4), 587–606.

  20. Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: How robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9), 1373–1384.

  21. Guan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science–technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.

  22. Ho, M. H. C., Liu, J. S., Lu, W. M., & Huang, C. C. (2014). A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 247–275.

  23. Hsu, C. L., & Chiang, C. H. (2015). The financial crisis research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 161–177.

  24. Huang, M. H., Dong, H. R., & Chen, D. Z. (2013). The unbalanced performance and regional differences in scientific and technological collaboration in the field of solar cells. Scientometrics, 94(1), 423–438.

  25. 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.

  26. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.

  27. Jacsó, P. (2011). The h-index, h-core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the Web of Science database in three configurations. Online Information Review, 35(5), 821–833.

  28. Ju, Y., & Sohn, S. (2015). Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining. Scientometrics, 102(1), 389–410.

  29. Leydesdorff, L., Alkemade, F., Heimeriks, G., & Hoekstra, R. (2015). Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: Geographic and technological perspectives on ‘photovoltaic cells’. Scientometrics, 102(1), 629–651.

  30. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science Categories. Scientometrics, 94(2), 589–593.

  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.

  32. Lin, W. Y. C., Chen, D. Z., & Huang, M. H. (2011). Relation between technology and science: A perspective of patent and paper production. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 48(3), 303–323.

  33. Liu, G. (2013). Visualization of patents and papers in terahertz technology: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1037–1056.

  34. Maraut, S., & Martínez, C. (2014). Identifying author-inventors from Spain: Methods and a first insight into results. Scientometrics, 101(1), 445–476.

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

  36. 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.

  37. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.

  38. Montecchi, T., Russo, D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Searching in Cooperative Patent Classification: Comparison between keyword and concept-based search. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(3), 335–345.

  39. Mueller, S. C., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). Monitoring innovation in electrochemical energy storage technologies: A patent-based approach. Applied Energy, 137, 537–544.

  40. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.

  41. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.

  42. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.

  43. Noyons, E. C. M., Buter, R. K., van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., & Rangnow, R. (2004). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe: Nanoscience and nanotechnology. Leiden, NL: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University.

  44. OECD. (2008). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris, FR: OECD.

  45. Okamuro, K., & Nishimura, J. (2013). Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university–industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 273–301.

  46. Park, H., & Kang, J. (2009). Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents. Scientometrics, 81(3), 811–820.

  47. Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016). Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 108(1), 167–182.

  48. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.

  49. Ponomariov, B. (2013). Government-sponsored university–industry collaboration and the production of nanotechnology patents in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 749–767.

  50. Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 663–678.

  51. Sandal, N., & Kumar, A. (2016). Searching and analysing patent document to solve R&D problems. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 36(2), 65–72.

  52. Schmoch, U., Dornbusch, F., Mallig, N., Michels, C., Schulze, N., & Bethke, N. (2012). Vollständige Erfassung von Patentan-meldungen aus Universitäten. http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/p/de/publikationen/Endbericht-Unipatente-Maerz-2012.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

  53. Schoen, A., Heinisch, D., & Buenstorf, G. (2014). Playing the ‘Name Game’ to identify academic patents in Germany. Scientometrics, 101(1), 527–545.

  54. Sherry, E. F., & Teece, D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33(2), 179–191.

  55. Soon, C., & Cho, H. (2011). Flows of relations and communication among Singapore political bloggers and organizations: The networked public sphere approach. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 93–109.

  56. Subramanian, A. M., & Soh, P. H. (2010). An empirical examination of the science–technology relationship in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3/4), 160–171.

  57. Swar, B., & Khan, G. F. (2013). An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and triple helix approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2366–2378.

  58. Testa, J. (2016). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/. Accessed 23 October 2016.

  59. Thomson Reuters (2014). Incites indicators handbook. http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/indicators-handbook.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2017.

  60. Thomson Reuters (2016). Web of Science subject areas. http://incites.isiknowledge.com/common/help/h_field_category_wos.html. Accessed 23 October 2016.

  61. Van der Valk, T., Chappin, M. M., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 25–39.

  62. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.

  63. 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.

  64. Waltman, L., & Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.

  65. Wang, G., & Guan, J. (2011). Measuring science-technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: An exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 6245–6262.

  66. Wang, X., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., et al. (2017). Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: Detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2023–2039.

  67. White, M. (2010). Patent searching: Back to the future how to use patent classification search tools to create better searches. In First Annual Conference of the Canadian Engineering Education Association, Kingston, Ontario.

  68. WIPO (2013). The IPC-technology concordance table. http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/technology_concordance.html. Accessed 26 October 2016.

  69. WIPO. (2016). 2016 World intellectual property indicators. Geneva, CH: World Intellectual Property Organization.

  70. Wong, C. Y., Fatimah Mohamad, Z., Keng, Z. X., & Ariff Azizan, S. (2014). Examining the patterns of innovation in low carbon energy science and technology: Publications and patents of Asian emerging economies. Energy Policy, 73, 789–802.

  71. Zhai, L., Pan, Y., Guo, Y., Ma, Z., & Bi, F. (2014). International comparative study on nanofiltration membrane technology based on relevant publications and patents. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1361–1374.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Grant No. Most 106-2410-H-492-002).

Author information

Correspondence to Shu-Hao Chang.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Science-patent linkage chart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, S. A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems. Scientometrics 114, 951–970 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2613-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Author–inventor network
  • Patent analysis
  • Network analysis
  • Classification system