Anticipating technological breakthroughs: Using bibliographic coupling to explore the nanotubes paradigm

Scientometrics

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 759-777

  Kuusi, Osmo ^a   Meyer, Martin ^b,c,d  

^a Valtion taloudellinen tutkimuskeskus Finland   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^d AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847421034     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-0311-5     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ANSOFF, I. (1984), Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice Hall International, New Jersey.
2. BROWN W., JIN, S., ZHU, W. (2001), In-Situ Nano-Interconnected Circuit Devices and Method for Making the Same, US patent 6,297,063 full text.
3. DOSI, G. (1988), The nature of the innovative process, In: G DOSI et al. (Eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London.
4. DOSI, G. (1982), Technical paradigms and technological trajectories, Research Policy, 11 (3): 147-162.
5. EGGHE, L., ROUSSEAU, R. (2002), Co-citation, bibliographic coupling and a characterization of lattice citation networks, Scientometrics, 55: 349-361.
6. GLÄNZEL, W. (2003), Bibliometrics as a Research Field, K.U. Leuven, F.E.T.E.W.: Leuven.
7. GLÄNZEL, W., CZERWON, H. J. (1996), A new methodological approach to bibliographic coupling and its application to the national, regional and institutional level, Scientometrics, 37: 195-221.
8. HICKS, D. (1987), Limitations of co-citation analysis as a tool for science policy, Social Studies of Science, 17: 295-316.
9. KATZ, J. S., STEWART, S., GOW, T. A. K., MARTIN, B. (2001), Science Foresight Project Final Report, Porton Down, Salisbury, Wiltshire: Defense Science and Technology Laboratory UK. www.sussex.ac.uk.Units/spru/foresight
10. KESSLER, M. M. (1963), Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers, American Documentation, 14: 10-25.
11. KUUSI, O. (1999), Expertise in the Future Use of Generic Technologies, Government Institute for Economic Research (VATT), Doctoral thesis, Helsinki, B 59.
12. KUUSI, O., MEYER M. (2002), Technological generalizations and leitbilder - the anticipation of technological opportunities, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 69: 625-639.
13. LUZZI, D., SMITH B. (2005), Hybrid Materials and Methods for Producing the Same, US patent 6,863,857.
14. MARSHAKOVA, I. V. (1973), System of connections between documents based on references (as the Science Citation Index), Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, (6): 3-8 (in Russian).
15. MARZ, L., DIERKES, M. (1994), Leitbildprägung und Leitbildgestaltung, In: G. BECHMANN, T. PETERMANN (Eds), Intedisziplinäre Technikforschung, Genese, Folgen, Diskurs. Campus, Frankfurt/M, New York.
16. MAU, A. et al. (2005), Patterned Carbon Nanotube Films, US patent 6,811,957 full text.
17. MERKERK, R., VAN LENTE, H. (2005), Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technology: the case of nanotubes, Report from the EU-US seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville 13-14 May 2004.
18. MEYER, M. (2000), What is special about patent citations? Differences between patent and scientific citations, Scientometrics, 49: 93-123.
19. MEYER, M., KUUSI, O. (2004), Nanotechnology: Generalizations in an Interdisciplinary Field of Science and Technology, HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10 (2): 155-170.
20. PERSSON, O. (1994), The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45 (1): 31-38.
21. RUECKES, T., SEGAL, B. (2004), Methods of Nanotube Films and Articles, US patent 6,835,591 full text.
22. RUECKES, T. et al. (2000), Carbon nanotube-based nonvolatile random access memory for molecular computing, Science, 289: 94-97.
23. SCHMOCH U. (1993), Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators, Scientometrics, 26: 193-211.
24. SCHMOCH, U. (1997), Indicators and the relations between science and technology, Scientometrics, 38: 103-116.
25. SEN, S. K., GAN, S. K. (1983), A mathematical extension of the idea of bibliographic coupling and its applications, Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 30: 78-82.
26. SHARABCHIEV, J. T. (1988), Comparative analysis of two methods of cluster analysis of bibliographic references, Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 2, (4): 25-28 (in Russian).
27. SMALL, H. (1973), Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24: 265-269.
28. SMALL, H. (1978), Cited documents as context symbols, Social Studies of Science, 8: 327-240.
29. SMALL, H. (1982), Citation context analysis, Progress in Communication, Science, 3: 287-310.
30. SMALL, H. (1988), A general framework for general large-scale maps of science in two or three dimensions: The SciViz system, Scientometrics, 41: 125-133.
31. VLADUTZ, G., COOK, J. (1984), Bibliographic coupling and subject relatedness, In: Challenges to an Information Society, Proceedings of the 47th ASIS Annual Meeting (compiled by B. FLOOD, J. WITIAK, T. H. HOGAN), White Plains: Knowledge Industry Publications, 204-207.
32. VON WARTBURG, I., TEICHERT, T., ROST, K. (2005), Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis, Research Policy, 34 (10): 1591-1607.