Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: A review of social science studies and search strategies

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 145-172

  Huang, Can ^a,b   Notten, Ad ^a   Rasters, Nico ^b  

^a UNU MERIT   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Data mining; Nanotechnology; Patents; Productivity; Publications; Research and development; Search strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952249290     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-009-9149-8     Document Type: Review

References (128)

1. Ahmad, K., & Al-Thubaity, A. (2003). Can text analysis tell us something about technology progress? In Annual meeting of the ACL, proceedings of the ACL-2003 workshop on patent corpus processing (Vol. 20, pp. 46-55).
2. Alencar, M. S. M., Porter, A. L., & Antunes, A. M. S. (2007). Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 1661-1680.
3. Avanel, E., et al. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36, 864-870.
4. Bachmann, G., et al. (2004). Nanotechnology in the candidate countries (updated version): Who's who and research priorities. 2nd Nanoforum report, http://www. Nanoforum. org, Dusseldorf.
5. Bassecoulard, E., Lelu, A., & Zitt, M. (2007). Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis. Scientometrics, 70(3), 859-880.
6. Baughman, R. H., Zakhidov, A. A., & de Heer, W. A. (2002). Carbon nanotubes-The route toward applications. Science, 297(5582), 787-792.
7. Bawa, R. (2007). Patents and nanomedicine. Nanomedicine, 2(3), 351-374.
8. Bengisu, M. (2003). Critical and emerging technologies in materials, manufacturing, and industrial engineering: A study for priority setting. Scientometrics, 58(3), 473-487.
9. Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2005). Scientific and technological regimes in nanotechnology: Combinatorial inventors and performance. Pisa: Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies. (LEM working paper series, no. 2005/13).
10. Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813-831.
11. Bowman, D. M. (2007). Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology. Technology in Society, 29, 307-315.
12. Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321-325.
13. Braun, T., Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2000). How balanced is the Science Citation index's journal coverage? A preliminary overview of macrolevel statistical data. In B. Cronin & H. Barsky Atkins (Eds.), Web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 251-277). Medford, NJ: Information Today. ASIS monograph series.
14. Braun, T., et al. (2007a). Gatekeeping patterns in nano-titled journals. Scientometrics, 70(3), 651-667.
15. Braun, T., et al. (2007b). Gatekeeper index versus impact factor of science journals. Scientometrics, 71(3), 541-543.
16. Bubel, E. (1999). Anwendungsmöglichkeiten scientometrische Methoden in Wissenschaft und Forschung exemplarisch dargestellt am Beispiel der Nanotechnologie. Dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrucken.
17. Calderini, M., & Franzoni, C. (2004). Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. Milan: Università Commerciale "Luigi Bocconi". (CESPRI working paper n. 162).
18. Calero, C., et al. (2006). How to identify research groups using publication analysis: An example in the field of nanotechnology. Scienctometrics, 66(2), 365-376.
19. Chau, M. (2003). Searching and mining the web for personalized and specialized information. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
20. Chau, M., et al. (2006). Building a scientific knowledge web portal: The NanoPort experience. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 1216-1238.
21. Clarkson, G., & DeKorte, D. (2006). The problem of patent thickets in convergent technologies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1093(1), 180-200.
22. Colwell, K. A. (2003). The structure of alliance networks in nascent organizational fields: The case of nanotechnology. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
23. Commission, European. (2003). Third European report on science & technology indicators 2003: Towards a knowledge-based economy. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Directorate-General for Research, EUR 20025 EN.
24. Compano, R., & Hullmann, A. (2002). Forecasting the development of nanotechnology with the help of science and technology indicators. Nanotechnology, 13, 243-247.
25. Darby, M. R., & Zucker, L. G. (2003). Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (NBER working paper series, working paper no. 9825).
26. Dunn, S., & Whatmore, R. W. (2002). Nanotechnology advances in Europe. Luxembourg: European Parliament. Directorate-General for Research, Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Series. Working paper STOA 18 EN.
27. Eto, H. (2003). Interdisciplinary information input and output of a nano-technology project. Scientometrics, 58(1), 5-33.
28. Garfield, E., & Pudovkin, A. I. (2003). From materials science to nano-ceramics: Citation analysis identifies the key journals and players. Journal of Ceramic Processing Research, 4(4), 155-167.
29. Glanzel, W., et al. (2003). Nanotechnology: Analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavour. Leuven: K. U. Leuven, Steunpunt O& O Statistieken, Report.
30. Group, E. T. C. (2005). Nanotech's "second nature" patents: Implications for the Global South. Ottawa: ETC. Group. ETC. Group Special Report-Communiqués no. 87 and 88.
31. Guan, J., & Ma, N. (2007). China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience 'giants'. Research Policy, 36, 880-886.
32. Gupta, V. K. (1999). Technological trends in the area of fullerenes using bibliometric analysis of patents. Scientometrics, 44(1), 17-31.
33. Gupta, V. K., & Pangannaya, N. B. (2000). Carbon nanotubes: Bibliometric analysis of patents. World Patent Information, 22, 185-189.
34. Gurusamy, S., et al. (2007). Nanomedicine: An emerging modality based on nanotechnology for therapy and diagnosis. Journal of Korean Industrial Engineering and Chemistry, 18(3), 199-204.
35. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24, 93-109.
36. Harris, D. L., & Bawa, R. (2007). The carbon nanotube patent landscape in nanomedicine: An expert opinion. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, 17(9), 1-11.
37. Heinze, T. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: Analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1(4), 1-19.
38. Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S& T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811-830.
39. Heinze, T., et al. (2007). Identifying creative research accomplishments: Methodology and results for nanotechnology and human genetics. Scientometrics, 70(1), 125-152.
40. Hicks, D., & Katz, J. (1996). Where is science going? Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(4), 379-406.
41. Holtum, D. (2005). EPSRC nanotechnology theme day, 16 June 2005, Church House, London. Report. Swindon: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Available at http://www. epsrc. ac. uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/Nano/RC/NanotechnologyThemeDayReport. htm, last accessed on Apr 30, 2008.
42. Hu, D., et al. (2007). Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 529-542.
43. Huang, Z., et al. (2003). Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 333-363.
44. Huang, Z., et al. (2004). International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 325-354.
45. Huang, Z., et al. (2005). Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1991-2002): National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 343-376.
46. Huang, Z., et al. (2006). Connecting NSF funding to patent innovation in nanotechnology (2001-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 859-879.
47. Hullmann, A. (2001). Internationaler Wissenstransfer und Technischer Wandel: Bedeutung, Einflussfaktoren und Ausblick auf Technologiepolitische Implikationen am Beispiel der Nanotechnologie in Deutschland. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
48. Hullmann, A. (2006a). The economic development of nanotechnology - An indicators based analysis. European Commission, DG Research, Unit "Nano S& T-Convergent Science and Technologies". Staff working paper. Available at ftp://www. cordis. europa. eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanoarticle_hullmann_nov2006. pdf, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
49. Hullmann, A. (2006b). Who is winning the global nanorace. Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 81-83.
50. Hullmann, A. (2007). Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 739-758.
51. 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.
52. Igami, M., & Okazaki, T. (2007). Capturing nanotechnology's current state of development via analysis of patents. OECD science, technology and industry working papers, 2007/4. Paris: OECD. Available at http://www. oecd. org/dataoecd/6/9/38780655. pdf, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
53. Igami, M., & Saka, A. (2007). Capturing the evolving nature of science, the development of new scientific indicators and the mapping of science. OECD science, technology and industry working papers, 2007/1. Paris, OECD. Available at http://www. lysander. sourceoecd. org/vl=4731608/cl=28/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/wppdf?file=5l4tgtcf0bwl. pdf, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
54. Katz, S., et al. (2001). Science foresight project: Final report (Vol. 1). Porton Down: Defence Science and Technology Laboratory UK. DSTL/TR01697.
55. Koppikar, V., Maebius, S. B., & Rutt, J. S. (2004). Current trends in nanotech patents: A view from inside the patent office. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1(1), 1-7.
56. Kostoff, R. N., et al. (2006a). The seminal literature of nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 193-213.
57. Kostoff, R. N., et al. (2006b). The structure and infrastructure of the global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 301-321.
58. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2006c). Structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology research literature. Arlington: Office of Naval Research. Report.
59. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007a). Global nanotechnology research literature overview. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 1733-1747.
60. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007b). Global nanotechnology research metrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 565-601.
61. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007c). Global nanotechnology research literature overview. Current Science, 92(11), 1492-1498.
62. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2007d). Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(5), 701-724.
63. Kostoff, R. N., Koytcheff, R. G., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2008). Structure of the nanoscience and nanotechnology applications literature. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(5), 472-484.
64. Kuusi, O., & Meyer, M. (2007). Anticipating technological breakthroughs: Using bibliographic coupling to explore the nanotubes paradigm. Scientometrics, 70(3), 759-777.
65. Larsen, K. (2007). Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research. Scientometrics, 74, 123-142.
66. Lee, Y.-G., & Song, Y.-I. (2007). Selecting the key research areas in nano-technology field using technology cluster analysis: A case study based on National R& D Programs in South Korea. Technovation, 27, 57-64.
67. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Visualization of the citation impact environment of scientific journals: An online mapping exercise. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(1), 25-38.
68. 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), 1303-1319.
69. Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics, 78(1), 23-36.
70. Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693-713.
71. Li, X., et al. (2007a). Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 337-352.
72. Li, X., et al. (2007b). Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 9(6), 977-1002.
73. Libaers, D., Meyer, M., & Geuna, A. (2006). The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 443-450.
74. Lin, M.-W., & Zhang, J. (2007). Language trends in nanoscience and technology: The case of Chinese-language publications. Scientometrics, 70(3), 555-564.
75. Lucios-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Knowledge emergence in scientific communication: From "fullerenes" to "nanotubes". Scientometrics, 70(3), 603-632.
76. Lux Research Inc. (2007). The nanotech report (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research.
77. Malanowski, N., & Zweck, A. (2007). Bridging the gap between foresight and market research: Integrating methods to assess the economic potential of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 1805-1822.
78. Malsch, I., & Oud, M. (2004). Outcome of the open consultation on the European strategy for nanotechnology. Nanoforum Reports, http://www. Nanoforum. org, Dusseldorf.
79. Marinova, D., & McAleer, M. (2003). Nanotechnology strength indicators: International rankings based on US patents. Nanotechnology, 14, 1-7.
80. Meyer, M. (2000a). Patent citations in a novel field of technology-What can they tell about interactions between Emerging Communities of Science and Technology? Scientometrics, 48(2), 151-178.
81. Meyer, M. (2000b). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29(3), 409-434.
82. Meyer, M. (2001a). Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51(1), 163-183.
83. Meyer, M. (2001b). Science & technology indicators trapped in the triple helix? The case of patent citations in a novel field of technology. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for Studies in Education and Research. SISTER working paper 2001. 7.
84. Meyer, M., et al. (2001). Mapping excellence in nanotechnologies preparatory study. Report for the Directorate-General Research. Luxembourg: European Commission. Available at http://www. ec. europa. eu/research/era/pdf/nanoexpertgroupreport. pdf, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
85. Meyer, M. (2006a). 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.
86. Meyer, M. (2006b). Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Scientometrics, 68(3), 545-560.
87. Meyer, M. (2006c). Are co-active researchers on top of their class? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex. SPRU electronic working paper series no. 144.
88. Meyer, M. (2006d). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology. Working paper no 2006/1.
89. 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.
90. Meyer, M., & Persson, O. (1998). Nanotechnology: Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics, 42(2), 195-205.
91. Miyazaki, K., & Islam, N. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation-An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27, 661-675.
92. Moed, H., Glanzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S& T systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
93. Mogoutov, A., & Kahane, B. (2007). Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36, 893-903.
94. Niosi, J., & Reid, S. E. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35(3), 426-438.
95. Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences' literature. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 161-169.
96. Noyons, E. C. M., et al. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe Nanoscience and nanotechnology. Draft report of project EC-PPN CT-2002-2001 to the European Commission. Available at http://www. studies. cwts. nl/projects/ec-coe/downloads/Final_report_13112003_nano. pdf, last accessed on May 2, 2008.
97. Porter, A. L., et al. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715-728.
98. Pouris, A. (2007). Nanoscale research in South Africa: A mapping exercise based on scientometrics. Scientometrics, 70(3), 541-553.
99. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2006). Diversity of knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in bionanotechnology. In Proceedings international workshop on webometrics, informetrics and scientometrics & seventh COLLNET meeting, Nancy.
100. Rafols, I., & Meyer, M. (2007). How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics, 70(3), 633-650.
101. Rinia, E. (2007). Measurement and evaluation of interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer. Doctoral thesis, CWTS, Leiden University, Leiden.
102. Robinson, D. K. R., Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2007). Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S& T via statement-linkages: Vision assessment in molecular machines. Scientometrics, 70(3), 831-858.
103. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. NSET workshop report. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Available at http://www. wtec. org/loyola/nano/NSET. Societal. Implications/, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
104. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2007). The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy, 36, 832-849.
105. Santo, M. d. M., et al. (2006). Text mining as a valuable tool in foresight exercises: A study on nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 1013-1027.
106. Scheu, M., et al. (2006). Mapping nanotechnology patents: The EPO approach. World Patent Information, 28(3), 204-211.
107. Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of scientific research? Scientometric, 74, 361-377.
108. Schummer, J. (2004a). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425-465.
109. Schummer, J. (2004b). The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: A bibliometric approach to the assessmentof science policy. Scientometrics, 70(3), 669-692.
110. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2006). Measures for knowledge-based economic development: Introducing data mining techniques to economic developers in the state of Georgia and the US South. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 950-965.
111. Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2008). Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: Path dependency or new opportunities? Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 187-199.
112. Tolles, W. M. (2001). National security aspects of nanotechnology. In M. C. Roco, & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. NSET workshop report. Arlington: National Science Foundation. Available at http://www. wtec. org/loyola/nano/NSET. Societal. Implications/, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
113. van Leeuwen, Th. N., et al. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51, 335-346.
114. van Looy, B., et al. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295-310.
115. Verbeek, A., et al. (2003). Linking science to technology-Bibliographic references in patents: Volume 9. Detailed analysis of the science-technology in the field of nanotechnology. Luxemburg: European Commission. Directorate-General for research, report EUR 20492.
116. Wagner, V., et al. (2006). The emerging nanomedicine landscape. Nature Biotechnology, 24(10), 1211-1217.
117. Warris, C. (2004). Nanotechnology Benchmarking project report. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science. Available at http://www. science. org. au/policy/nanotech. htm, last accessed on Apr 29, 2008.
118. Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practicing interdisciplinarity (pp. 25-45). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
119. Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Chan, C. K. (2007). Internationalization and evolution of application areas of an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(3), 715-737.
120. Yeap, T., Loo, G. H., & Pang, S. (2003). Computational patent mapping: Intelligent agents for nanotechnology. In IEEE proceedings of international conference on MEMS, NANO and smart systems (pp. 274-278).
121. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2007). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 315-329.
122. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981-986.
123. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83-104.
124. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42, 1513-1531.
125. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2007). Erratum to "Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences" [Information Processing and Management 42 (2006) 1513-1531]. Information Processing and Management, 43, 834.
126. Zucker, L. G., & Darby, M. R. (2005). Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working paper series, working paper no. 11181.
127. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U. S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88, 290-306.
128. Zucker, L. G., et al. (2007). Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Research Policy, 36, 850-863.