Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The structure of biotechnology R & D

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The structure of R & D in biotechnology is analysed using co-classification analysis of joint subject heading assignments in Derwent BIOTECHNOLOGY ABSTRACTS and subject profile analysis of 44 highly productive biotechnology-intensive organizations whose patents and publications are indexed therein. A Pathfinder Network Analysis reveals two distinct foci in biotechnology R & D-fermentation and genetic engineering-each linked to relevant products and secondary processes. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis identified 5 major groupings of companies, research institutes, and patent-holding organizations arranged along two dimensions-industrial fermentation processesvs genetic engineering and biomedicalvs non-biomedical R & D.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Big bang biotech research doesn't always guarantee big bucks profits,Science Watch, (1991, September) p. 1–2.

  2. Coombs, J. &Alston, Y. R. (Eds),The Biotechnology Directory New York, NY, Stockton Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braam, R. R.,Mapping of Science: Foci of Intellectual Interest in Scientific Literature, DSWO Press, Leiden University, 1991.

  4. Crafts-Lightly, A.,Information Sources, in Biotechnology (second), New York, Stockton Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Looze, M., The application of scientometric tools to the analysis of a sector in plant biotechnologies: Nitrogen fixation,Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dou, H., Hassanaly, P. &Quoniam, L., Infographic analytical tools for decision makers. Analysis of the research production in sciences. Application to chemistry, comparison between Marseille and Montpellier (France),Scientometrics, 17 (1989) 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Engelsman, E. C. &Van Raan, A. F. J., A patent-based cartography of technology,Research Policy, 23 (1994) 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ennis, J. G., The social organization of sociological knowledge: Modeling the intersection of specialties,American Sociological Review, 57 (1992) 259–265.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Franklin, J. J., Testing and using quantitative methods in science policy contexts: A response to Hicks,Social Studies of Science, 18 (1988) 365–375.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Franklin, J. J. &Johnston, R., Co-citation bibliometric, modeling as a tool for S & T policy and R & D management: Issues, applications, and developments. In:A. F. V. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Holland, Elsevier, 1988, pp. 325–389.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gianturco, M., (1990, December 20) Peer Review,Forbes, reprint.

  12. Giusti, W. L. &Georghiou, L., The use of co-nomination analysis in real-time evaluation of an R-and-D program,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Griliches, Z. (Ed.),R & D, Patents, and Productivity Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Halperin, M. R.,The Publications of U.S. Industrial Scientists: A Company and Industry Analysis, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Healey, P., Rothman, H. &Hoch, P. K., An experiment in science mapping for research planning,Research Policy, 15 (1986) 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hicks D., Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy,Social Studies of Science, 17 (1987) 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hinze, S., Bibliographic cartography of an emerging interdisciplinary discipline: The case of bioelectronics,Scientometrics, 29 (1994) 353–376.

    Google Scholar 

  18. King, J., A review of bibliometrics and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation,Journal of Information Science, 13 (1987) 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Koenig, M. E., A bibliometric analysis of pharmaceutical research,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kostoff, R. N., Co-word analysis. In:B. Bozeman &J. Melkers (Eds),Evaluating R & D Impacts: Methods and Practice, Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pp. 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lenk, P., Mapping of fields based on nominations,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34 (1983) 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewison, G. &Cunningham, P., Bibliometric studies for the evaluation of trans-national research,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Martin, B. R. &Irvine, J., Assessing basic research,Research Policy, 12 (1983) 61–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. McCain, K. W., Biotechnology in context: A database-filtering approach to identifying core and productive non-core journals, supporting multi-disciplinary R & D.Journal of the American Society for Information Science (in press 1995).

  25. McCain, K. W., Visible colleges: The special interest group co-membership structure ofAsis. S. Bonzi (Ed.)Integrating Technologies/Converging Professions, Vol. 30, Columbus, OH, 1993, October 24. Medford, NJ: Learned Information, 1993, pp. 172–177.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McCain, K. W., Core journal networks and cocitation maps: New bibliometric tools for serials research and management,Library Quarterly, 61 (1991) 311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McCain, K. W., Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview,Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (1990) 433–443.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McCain, K. W., White, H. D. &Griffith, B. C., Comparing Retrieval Performance in Online Data Bases,Information Processing & Management, 23 (1987) 539–553.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Melkers, J. Bibliometrics as a tool for analysis of R & D impacts. In:B. Bozeman &J. Melkers (Eds),Evaluating R & D Impacts: Methods and Practice, Boston, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, pp. 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Narin, F., Olivastro, D. &Stevens, K. A., Bibliometrics/theory practice and problems,Evaluation Review, 18 (1994) 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Narin, F. & Smith, V. M. Invisible enemies: Identifying future technological competitors.Keeping Apace in the CI Race. Ninth Annual International Conference of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals, Boston, MA, 1994, April 27, pp. 66–87.

  33. Nederhof, A. J., Changes in publication patterns of biotechnologists: An evaluation of the impact of government stimulation programs in six industrial nations,Scientometrics, 14 (1988) 475–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Peters, H. P. F. &Van Raan, A. F. J., Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling,Research Policy, 22 (1993) 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Peters, H. P. F. &Van Raan, A. F. J., Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part II: Representations by combined clustering and multidimensional scaling,Research Policy, 22 (1993) 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rip, A. Mapping of science: Possibilities and limitations. In:A. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Holland, Elsevier, 1988, pp. 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rip, A. &Courtial, L., Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics,Scientometrics, 6 (1984) 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (Ed.),Pathfinder Associative Networks. Studies in Knowledge Organization. Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Science Watch's 30 leading industrials. (1990, November),Science Watch, p. 7.

  40. Snow, B., Patents in non-patent databases: Bioscience specialty files,Database, 12 (1989) 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Stenberg, L., Molecular Beam Epitaxy — A mesoview of Japanese research organization. In:H. Grupp (Ed.),Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation, Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 161–223.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Subramanyam, K.,Scientific, and Technical Information Resources, New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Taubes, G., Measure for measure in science,Science, 260 (1993) 884–886.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tijssen, R. J. W.,Cartography of science: scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods, Leiden, Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tijssen, R. J. W., A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science, and technology: Co-classification analysis of energy research,Research Policy, 21 (1992) 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tijssen, R. J. W. &Van Raan, A. F. J., Mapping changes in science and technology: Bibliometric co-occurrence analysis of the R & D literature,Evaluation Review, 18 (1994) 98–115.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Todorov, R., Displaying content of scientific journals: A co-heading analysis,Scientometrics, 23 (1992) 319–334.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Todorov, R., Representing a scientific field: A bibliometric approach,Scientometrics, 15 (1989) 593–605.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Todorov, R. &Winterhager, M., Mapping Australian geophysics: A co-heading analysis,Scientometrics, 19 (1990) 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Turner, W. A., Chartron, G., Laville, F. &Michelet, B., Packaging information for peer review: New co-word analysis techniques. InA. F. J. Van Raan (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 1988, pp. 291–323.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Van Raan, A. F. J. (Ed.),Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  52. White, H. D. &McCain, K. W., Bibliometrics,Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24 (1989) 119–186.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information Studies, Drexel University, 19104, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Katherine W. McCain

Authors
  1. Katherine W. McCain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCain, K.W. The structure of biotechnology R & D. Scientometrics 32, 153–175 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016892

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016892

Keywords

Search

Navigation