Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 59, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1582-1597

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGLOMERATION; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

CO-CITATION; DIGIT LEVEL; PATENT CLASSIFICATIONS; PATENT COOPERATION TREATY; PATENT PORTFOLIOS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 48849104608     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20814     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Adair, W.C. (1955). Citation indexes for scientific literature. American Documentation, 6, 31-32.
2. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirement for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550-560.
3. Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
4. Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351-374.
5. Braun, T., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2007). The mechanism of research on nanostructures. Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai Kiadó.
6. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Knowledge networks from patent data. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 613-643). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
7. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2004). The Empirical Assessment of Firms' Technological Coherence: Data and Methodology. In J. Cantwell, A. Gambardella, & O. Granstrand (Eds.), The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification (pp. 69-98). Routledge Studies in the Modern World Economy. London: Routledge.
8. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69-87.
9. Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W.A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22, 191-235.
10. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: Macmillan.
11. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and post-modernism. London: Routledge.
12. Cockburn, I.M., Kortum, S.S., & Stern, S. (2002). Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of examiner characteristics. Working Paper No. 8980. Cambridge, MA: NBER. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.nber.org/ papers/w8980
13. Criscuolo, P. (2004). R&D internationalisation and knowledge transfer. Maastricht, The Netherlands: University of Maastricht.
14. Criscuolo, P. (2006). The "home advantage" effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USTPTO and EPO. Scientometrics, 66(1), 23-41.
15. Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. (2005). Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents [Working Paper 05.06], Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.
16. Dibiaggio, L., & Nesta, L. (2005). Patents statistics, knowledge specialisation and the organisation of competencies. Revue d'économie industrielle, Nr. 110, 103-126.
17. Ejermo, O. (2005). Technological diversity and Jacobs' externality hypothesis revisited. Growth and Change, 36(2), 167-195.
18. Engelsman, E.C., & Van Raan, A.F.J. (1993). International comparison of technological activities and specializations: A patent-based monitoring system. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 5(2), 113-136.
19. Engelsman, E.C., & Van Raan, A.F.J. (1994). A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy, 23(1), 1-26.
20. Eurostat. (2006). Triadic patent families. Eurostat Metadata in SDDS format: Summary methodology. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://europa.eu. int/estatref/info/sdds/en/pat/pat_td_ntot_sm.htm.
21. Evenson, R., & Puttnam, J. (1988). The Yale-Canada patent flow concordance [Working Paper]. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
22. Foray, D., & Lundvall, B.-A. (1996). The knowledge-based economy: From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy. In D. Foray & B.-A. Lundvall (Eds.), Employment and growth in the knowledge-based economy (pp. 11-32). Paris: OECD.
23. Freeman, L.C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35-41.
24. Fruchterman, T., & Reingold, E. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed replacement. Software - Practice and Experience, 21, 1129-1166.
25. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122(3159), 108-111.
26. Garfield, E. (1957). Breaking the subject index barrier - A citation index for chemical patents. Journal of the Patent Office Society, 39(8), 583-595.
27. Grupp, H., Munt, G., & Schmoch, U. (1996). Assessing different types of patent data for describing high-technology export performance. In Innovation, patents and technological strategies (pp. 271-287). Paris: OECD.
28. Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (1999). Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: New legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Research Policy, 28, 377-396.
29. Guan, J.C., & He, Y. (in press). Networks of scientific journals: Exploration of Chinese patent data. Scientometrics.
30. Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). The NBER patent-citations cata file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools. In A.B. Jaffe & M. Trajtenberg (Eds.), Patents, citations, & innovations (pp. 403-459). Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
31. Healey, P., Rothman, H., & Koch, P.K. (1986). An experiment in science mapping for research planning. Research Policy, 15, 179-184.
32. Hullmann, A. (2006). Who is winning the global nanorace? Nature, 1(2), 81-83.
33. Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 739-758.
34. Jaffe, A.B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.
35. Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7-15.
36. Kauffman, S.A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Larkey, L. (1999). A patent search and classification system. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 179-187).
39. Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence and performance of firms. Leuven/Eindhoven, Belgium: KU Leuven, Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation (MSI No. 0706). Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/fetew/ pdf_publicaties/MSI_0706.pdf
40. Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11, 291-320.
41. Leydesdorff, L. (1989). Words and co-words as indicators of intellectual organization. Research Policy, 18, 209-223.
42. Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden, The Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University. Retrieved November 13,2007, from http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816
43. Leydesdorff, L. (2004). The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 55(11), 991-1001.
44. Leydesdorff, L. (2006a). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Rota, FL: Universal.
45. Leydesdorff, L. (2006b). Can scientific journals be classified in terms of aggregated journal-journal citation relations using the Journal Citation Reports? Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 57(5), 601-613.
46. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). "Betweenness centrality" as an indicator of the "interdisciplinarity" of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303-1309.
47. Leydesdorff, L., & Bensman, S.J. (2006). Classification and powerlaws: The logarithmic transformation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(11), 1470-1486.
48. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphors in science communication: Mapping the case of "stem-cell research." Science Communication, 27(1), 64-99.
49. Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2006). Measuring the meaning of words in contexts: An automated analysis of controversies about "Monarch butterflies," "Frankenfoods," and "stem cells." Scientometrics, 67(2), 231-258.
50. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (forthcoming). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.leydesdorff.net/map06/texts/index.htm
51. Leydesdorff, L., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Co-occurrence matrices and their applications in information science: Extending ACA to the Web environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(12), 1616-1628.
52. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693-713.
53. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft (The Science of Society). Frankfurt au Maim, Germany: Suhrkamp.
54. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. London: Pinter.
55. Magnani, M., & Montesi, D. (2007). Integration of patent and company databases. The 11th International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS 2007) (pp. 163-171). Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/proceedings/ &toc=comp/proceedings/ideas/2007/2947/00/2947toc. xml&DOI=10.1109/IDEAS. 2007.32
56. Merton, R.K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
57. Michel, J., & Bettels, B. (2001). Patent citation analysis. A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics, 51(1), 185-201.
58. Mogee, M.E., & Kolar, R.G. (1999). Patent co-citation analysis of Eli Lilly & Co. patents. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 9(3), 291-305.
59. Mogoutov, A., Cambrosio, A., Keating, P., & Mustar, P. (in press). Biomedical innovation at the laboratory, clinical and commercial interface: A new method for mapping research projects, publications and patents in the field of microarrays. Scientometrics.
60. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1988). Technology indicators based on patents and patent citations. In A.F.J. V. Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 465-507). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
61. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237-249.
62. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
63. Nesta, L., & Saviotti, P. (2005). Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm's innovative performance: Evidence from the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53(1), 123-142.
64. OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators [Vol. OCDE/GD(94)114]. Paris: OECD. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/ 62/2095942.pdf
65. OECD. (2005). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris: OECD. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/24/8208325.pdf
66. Porter, A.L., & Cunningham, S.W. (2005). Tech mining: Exploiting new technologies for competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
67. Price, D.J. de Solla. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
68. Salton, G., & McGill, M.J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. Auckland, New Zealand: McGraw-Hill.
69. Sampat, B.N. (2006). Patenting and U.S. academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole. Research Policy, 35, 772-789.
70. Sapsalis, E., Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic vs. industry patenting: An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy, 35(10), 1631-1645.
71. Scheu, M., Veefkind, V., Verbandt, Y., Galan, E.M., Absalom, R., & Förster, W. (2006). Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information, 28, 204-211.
72. Schmoch, U., Laville, F., Patel, P., & Frietsch, R. (2003). Linking technology areas to industrial sectors. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Research. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/p/ Downloads/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Report%20Technology%20Industry%20.pdf
73. Spasser, M.A. (1997). Mapping the terrain of pharmacy: Co-classification analysis of the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database. Scientometrics, 39(1), 77-97.
74. Tijssen, R.J.W. (1992a). Cartography of science: Scientometric mapping with multidimensional scaling methods. Leiden, The Netherlands: DSWO Press, Leiden University.
75. Tijssen, R.J.W. (1992b). A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: Coclassification analysis of energy research. Research Policy, 21(1), 27-44.
76. Todorov, R. (1988). Representing a scientific field: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 15(5-6), 593-605.
77. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172-187.
78. Verspagen, B. (1997). Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: Estimates from the European and US Patent Office Databases. Economic Systems Research, 9(1), 47-65.
79. Verspagen, B. (2005). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks: A study on the history of fuel cell research. Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT); University Library, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
80. Verspagen, B., Van Moergastel, T., & Slabbers, M. (1994). MERIT Concordance Table: IPC-ISIC (Rev. 2). Maastricht, The Netherlands: Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
81. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (1970). Patent Cooperation Treaty. Geneva: WIPO. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.htm
82. WIPO (2006). International Patent Classification, Eight Edition, Guide. Geneva: WIPO. Retrieved March 12, 2008, at http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ fulltext/new_ipc/ipcen.html
83. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2007). WIPO Patent Report: Statistics on worldwide patent activity (2007 ed.). Geneva: WIPO. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/ patents/patent_report_2007.html