Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In order to avoid distortions of indicators caused by its extension of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007, EUR covers only the publication output of the 15 members according to the situation before 1 May 2004.
References
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.
Balassa, B. (1965). On the appropriate interpretation of the revealed comparative advantage. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 33(2), 99–123.
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.
Batagelj, V., & Mrvar, A. (2002). Pajek-analysis and visualization of large networks. Graph Drawing, 2265, 477–478.
Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5–6), 513–521.
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.
Czerwon, H. J., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1989). Eine quantitative Analyse der internationalen Publikationsaktivität auf dem Gebiet der Biotechnologie. Informatik, 36(4), 157–160.
Dalpé, R. (2002). Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 55(2), 189–213.
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.
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.
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.
Frame, D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia, 2, 143–148.
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.
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.
Glänzel, W., Danell, R., & Persson, O. (2003a). The decline of Swedish neuroscience–decomposing a bibliometric national science indicator. Scientometrics, 57(2), 197–213.
Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Triad’ or ‘Tetrad’? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 59–76.
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.
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.
Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: an exploratory study of ‘reverse’ citation relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415–428.
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. http://www.ecoom.be/fileadmin/user_upload/domain_studies/biotech_domain_study.pdf.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.
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.
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.
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.
Leta, J., Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2006). Science in Brazil. Part 2: sectoral and institutional research profiles. Scientometrics, 67(1), 87–105.
Lewison, G. (1994). Publications from the European community’s biotechnology action programme (BAP): multinationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations. Scientometrics, 31(2), 125–142.
McMillan, G. S., & Hamilton, R. D. (2007). The public science base of US biotechnology: a citation-weighted approach. Scientometrics, 72(1), 3–10.
Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409–434.
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.
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.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1995). Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5(3), 183–187.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.
Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.
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.
Nordstrom, L. O. (1987). Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics, 12(5–6), 381–394.
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.
REIST-2. (1997), The European Report on Science and Technology Indicators 1997. EUR 17639. European Commission, Brussels.
Rip, A., & Courtial, J. P. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive Scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6(6), 381–400.
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.
Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1990). World flash on basic research: International collaboration in the sciences, 1981–1985. Scientometrics, 19(1), 3–10.
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.
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.
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.
Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2008). China Ranks Second in Scientific Publications since 2006. ISSI Newsletter, 4(1), 7–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glänzel, W., Zhou, P. Publication activity, citation impact and bi-directional links between publications and patents in biotechnology. Scientometrics 86, 505–525 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0269-6