Refining search terms for nanotechnology

Abstract

The ability to delineate the boundaries of an emerging technology is central to obtaining an understanding of the technology’s research paths and commercialization prospects. Nowhere is this more relevant than in the case of nanotechnology (hereafter identified as “nano”) given its current rapid growth and multidisciplinary nature. (Under the rubric of nanotechnology, we also include nanoscience and nanoengineering.) Past efforts have utilized several strategies, including simple term search for the prefix nano, complex lexical and citation-based approaches, and bootstrapping techniques. This research introduces a modularized Boolean approach to defining nanotechnology which has been applied to several research and patenting databases. We explain our approach to downloading and cleaning data, and report initial results. Comparisons of this approach with other nanotechnology search formulations are presented. Implications for search strategy development and profiling of the nanotechnology field are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here, we follow the definition developed by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) which defines nanotechnology as “encompassing the science, engineering, and technology related to the understanding and control of matter at the length scale of approximately 1–100 nanometers.” Importantly, NNI adds that “nanotechnology is not merely working with matter at the nanoscale, but also research and development of materials, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions due to their nanoscale dimensions and components” (PCAST 2005).

  2. 2.

    See: http://cns.asu.edu/.

  3. 3.

    The CREA project involved researchers from the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research (Fhg-ISI), Germany, the Technology Policy and Assessment Center at Georgia Institute of Technology (USA), and Science and Technology Policy Research (SPRU) at Sussex University, UK, with sponsorship from the European Union’s program in New and Emerging Science and Technologies (NEST), see Heinze et al. (2007).

  4. 4.

    See: http://www.thevantagepoint.com/.

  5. 5.

    Prior to determining our search strategy, we consulted with others in the nanotechnology research community. In December 2005, we participated in a conference call involving members of the UCLA Nanobank team, CNS-ASU, CNS-UCSB, and other nano projects to discuss nano search strategies and information sharing. We also initiated contacts with Duke University (Giannela) and the European Union PRIME network (Mangematin) to share ideas and, potentially, to share nano information. We also interact on an ongoing basis with Georgia Tech colleague Stuart Graham, who is working on a UCLA-Harvard nano project, primarily focusing on nanopatenting.

  6. 6.

    Modifications of this search string for the EI Village databases (INSPEC and Compendex) are available on request.

References

  1. Alencar MSM, Porter AL, Antunes AMS (2007) Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technol Forecast Soc Change, forthcoming

  2. Bassecoulard E, Lelu A, Zitt M (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–880

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Drexler E, Peterson C (1991) Unbounding the future: the nanotechnology revolution. William Morrow and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. ETC Group (2003) From genomes to atoms: the big down. The etc Group, Winnipeg, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems, Innovations Research (2002) Search methodology for mapping nanotechnology patents. Karlsruhe, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  6. Heinze T, Shapira P, Senker J, Kuhlmann S (2007) Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics 70(1):125–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen ZK, Roco MC (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. J Nanoparticle Res 5(3-4):333–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang Z, Chen C, Chen A-K, Roco MC (2004) International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J Nanoparticle Res 6(4):325–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khushf G (2004) A hierarchical architecture for nano-scale science and technology: taking stock of the claims about science made by advocates of NBIC convergence. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kostoff RN, Koytcheff R, Lau CGY (2007) Structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology research literature. Available at http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/33/332/techno_watch_publications_textmine.asp. Cited 7 June 2007

  12. Kostoff RN, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006) The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanoparticle Res 8(2):193–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kostoff RN, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006a) The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. J Nanoparticle Res 8(2):193–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kostoff RN, Stump JA, Johnson D, Murday JS, Lau CGY, Tolles WM (2006b) The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. J Nanoparticle Res 8(3–4):301–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Porter AL, Cunningham SW (2005) Tech mining: exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rafols I, Meyer M (2007) Diversity measures and network centralities as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Madrid, June, 2007. Available at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/irafols. Cited 7 June 2007

  18. Zitt M, Bassecoulard E (2006) Delineating complex scientific fields by a hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Inform Processing Management 42(6):1513–1531

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Significant research assistance in search definition and database development was provided by Li Tang, Sharyn Finney, Pratik Mehta and Luke McCloud. Rich Kolar developed and generated the patent searches and databases. This research was undertaken at Georgia Tech with support by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), funded by the National Science Foundation (Award No. 0531194), and support by the National Partnership for Managing Upstream Innovation: The Case of Nanoscience and Technology (North Carolina State University; Award No. EEC-0438684). The findings and observations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Youtie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Porter, A.L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P. et al. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10, 715–728 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-007-9266-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bibliometric analysis
  • Nanoscience and engineering
  • Nanotechnology publication
  • Nanopatenting
  • Research profiling
  • Search strategies
  • Nanoinformatics