Can applied science be 'good science'? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience

Scientometrics

Volumn 85, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 527-539

  Meyer, M ^a,b   Debackere, K ^b   Glanzel W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Citation impact; Nanoscience; Nanotechnology; Patent citations; Science technology linkage

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956943161     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0154-3     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baldini, N. (2008). Negative effects of University Patenting: Myths and grounded. Scientometrics, 75(2), 289-311.
2. Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). Patents and publications: The lexical connection. 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 of S& T systems (pp. 665-694). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Braun, T., & Glänzel, W. (1990). United Germany: The new scientific superpower? Scientometrics, 19(5-6), 513-521.
4. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (1985). Scientometric indicators. A 32 country comparison of publication productivity and citation impact. Singapore and Philadelphia: World Scientific Publishing.
5. Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597-621.
6. Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2007). Patent and publication activities of German professors: An empirical assessment of their co-activity. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 311-319.
7. Czarnitzki, D., Glänzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implication for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26-34.
8. Debackere, K., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). Institutional variations in problem choice and persistence among scientists. Research Policy, 23(4), 425-441.
9. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter.
10. Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790-807.
11. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
12. Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69-115.
13. Glänzel, W. (2007). Characteristic scores and scales. A bibliometric analysis of subject characteristics based on long-term citation observation. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 92-102.
14. Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (2003). Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations in the triple helix. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415-428.
15. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357-367.
16. Glänzel, W., Meyer, M., Schlemmer, B., Du Plessis, M., Thijs, B., Magerman, T., Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2003). Nanotechnology-analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technologic endeavour. Accessible via: http://www. ecoom. be/nanotech_domain_study. pdf.
17. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., & Meyer, M. (2008). 'Triad' or 'tetrad'? On global changes in a dynamic world. Scientometrics, 74(1), 71-88.
18. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., Thijs, B., & Debackere, K. (2009). Subfield-specific normalized relative indicators and a new generation of relational charts: Methodological foundations illustrated on the assessment of institutional research performance. Scientometrics, 78(1), 165-188.
19. Granstrand, O., Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Multitechnology corporations: Why they have 'distributed' rather than 'distinctive core' capabilities. California Management Review, 39, 8-25.
20. Hicks, D. (2000). 360 degree linkage analysis. Research Evaluation, 9, 133-143.
21. Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology-an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507-527.
22. Katz, J. S. (2005). Scale-independent bibliometric indicators. Measurement, 3(1), 24-28.
23. Kumaramangalam, K. (2004). Does collaborating with academia improve industry science? Evidence from the UK Biotechnology Sector, 1988-2001. ASLIB Proceedings, 57(3), 261-277.
24. Kuusi, O., & Meyer, M. (2002). Technological generalizations and leitbilder-the anticipation of technological opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(6), 625-639.
25. Langlois, R. N. (1992). Transaction costs economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1, 99-127.
26. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409-434.
27. Meyer, M. (2001). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163-183.
28. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646-1662.
29. Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779-810.
30. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195-205.
31. Miyazaki, K., & Islam, N. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation-an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27, 661-675.
32. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369-381.
33. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1995). Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation, 5, 183-187.
34. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330.
35. NSTC (National Science and Technology Council). (2002). National nanotechnology initiative: The initiative and its implementation plan (FY 2003). Report, June 2002.
36. Porter, A. L. & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Manuscript under review, available at http://www. sussex. ac. uk/spru/profile167630. html.
37. Porter, A. L., & Youtie, J. (2009). How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 11, 1023-1041.
38. Price, D. J. D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science-a study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553-568.
39. Rafols, I., Park, J.-H., & Meyer, M. (2010, forthcoming). Hybrid nanomaterial research: Is it really interdisciplinary? In K. Rurack & R. Martínez-Máñez (Eds.), The supramolecular chemistry of organic-inorganic hybrid materials. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
40. Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In P. Kroes & M. Bakker (Eds.), Technological development and science in the industrial age (pp. 231-270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
41. Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59, 425-465.
42. Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
43. van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., & Debackere, K. (2003). Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? Scientometrics, 57(3), 355-367.
44. van Looy, B., Debackere, K., Callaert, J., Tijssen, R., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295-310.
45. van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Reference-based publication networks with episodic memories. Scientometrics, 63(3), 549-566.