Just how difficult can it be counting up R&D funding for emerging technologies (and is tech mining with proxy measures going to be any better)?

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 655-685

  Hopkins, Michael M ^a   Siepel, Josh ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

data mining; emerging technologies; science and technology and innovation policy studies; science and technology indicators; social shaping of technology; technology and innovation studies

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; DECISION MAKING; INNOVATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 84879537817     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2013.801950     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Abraham, J. 2010. Pharmaceuticalization of society in context. Sociology, 44: 603 - 22.
2. Aksnes, D. 2003. A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56 (2): 235 - 46.
3. Alcacer, J. and Gittelman, M. 2006. Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88: 774 - 79.
4. Alcacer, J., Gittelman, M. and Sampat, B. 2009. Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38: 415 - 27.
5. Anon. 2010. Editorial. Wrong Numbers?. Nature Biotechnology, 28 761
6. Archibuigi, D. 1992. Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: A review. Science and Public Policy, 19: 357 - 68.
7. Archibuigi, D. and Coco, A. 2004. A new indicator of technological capabilities for developed and developing countries (ArCo). World Development, 32: 629 - 54.
8. Archibuigi, D. and Pianta, M. 1996. Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16: 451 - 68.
9. Aristotle. 1995. Categories. In The complete works of Aristotle, Edited by: Jonathan, Barnes. 3 - 24. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. trans. J.L. Ackrill
10. Arundel, A. V., van Beuzekom, B. and Gillespie, I. 2007. Defining biotechnology - carefully. Trends in Biotechnology, 25: 331 - 32.
11. Augsdorfer, P. 1996. Forbidden fruit: An analysis of bootlegging, uncertainty and learning in corporate R&D, Aldershot: Avebury.
12. Benner, M. and Waldfogel, J. 2008. Close to you? Bias and precision in patent-based measures of technological proximity. Research Policy, 37: 1556 - 67.
13. Bijker, W. E. 1995. Of bicylces, bakelites and bulbs, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. BIS. 2010. Life sciences in the UK - economic analysis and evidence for life sciences 2010: Delivering the blueprint. BIS economics paper No. 2, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and Department of Health.
15. Bornmann, L. 2011. Mimicry in science?. Scientometrics, 86: 173 - 77.
16. Bowker, G. and Star, S. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Boyack, K., Klavans, R. and Borner, K. 2005. Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64: 351 - 74.
18. Calvert, J. 2006. What's special about basic research?. Science Technology and Human Values, 31: 199 - 220.
19. Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kang, J., Kim, K.-S., Lee, H. J., Ordóñez, G. and Porter, A. 2010. Emerging technologies: Quantitative identification and measurement. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22 (3): 361 - 76.
20. Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11: 147 - 62.
21. Enzing, C., A. van de Gisessen, S. van der Molen, G. Manicad, T. Reiss, R. Linder, D. Lacasa, et al. 2007. BioPolis: Inventory and analysis of national public policies that stimulate biotechnology research, its exploitation and commercialisation by industry in Europe in the period 2002-2005. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/biopolis-finalreport_en.pdf.
22. Freeman, C. and Louca, F. 2001. As time goes by, Oxford: OUP.
23. Gassmann, O., Reepmeyer, G. and von Zedtwitz, M. 2004. Leading pharmaceutical innovation: Trends and drivers for growth in the pharmaceutical industry, London: Springer.
24. Gittelman, M. and Kogut, B. 2003. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49: 366 - 82.
25. Glanzel, W. and Moed, H. 2002. Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53: 171 - 93.
26. Haggerty, K. 2001. Negotiated measures: The institutional micropolitics of official criminal justice statistics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 32: 705 - 22.
27. Hall, B., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. 2001. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER working paper 8498.
28. Headrick, D. 2000. When information came of age, Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.
29. Hess, A. and Rothaermel, F. 2011. When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 895 - 909.
30. Hicks, D. 1995. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private nature of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4: 401 - 424.
31. Hicks, D. 2011. Structural change and industrial classification. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 22: 93 - 105.
32. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. and Caelleigh, A. 2003. Impartial judgment by the 'gatekeepers' of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review projecess. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8: 75 - 96.
33. Hopkins, M., Martin, P., Nightingale, P., Kraft, A. and Mahdi, S. 2007. The Myth of the Biotech Revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organizational change. Research Policy, 36 (4): 566 - 89.
34. Hopkins, M., Madhi, S., Patel, P. and Thomas, S. 2007. DNA patenting: End of an era?. Nature Biotechnology, 25: 185 - 87.
35. Hopkins, M.M., S. Mahdi, S. Thomas, and P. Patel. 2006. Global trends in the granting, filing and exploitation of DNA patents. A report for the European Commission. Brighton: SPRU. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/patgen_finalreport.pdf (accessed October 2008).
36. House of Lords. 2010. Science and Technology Committee Examination of Winesses Questions 436-39. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldsctech/104/10011208.htm
37. Huggett, B., Hodgson, J. and Lähteenmäki, R. 2011. Public biotech 2010 - the numbers. Nature Biotechnology, 29: 585 - 91.
38. Jacobsson, S. and Johnson, A. 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28: 625 - 40.
39. Jaffe, A. B. and Trajtenberg, M. 2002. Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. and Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic evidence of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108 (3): 577 - 98.
41. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
42. Larsen, P., and M. von Ins. 2010. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 84: 575 - 603.
43. Leydesdorff, L. 1987. Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11 (5-6): 295 - 324.
44. Leydesdorff, L., Rotolo, D. and Rafols, I. 2012. Bibliometric perspectives on medical innovation using the medical subject headings of PubMed. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (11): 2239 - 53.
45. Martin, B. 1996. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36 (3): 343 - 62.
46. Martin, P., Hopkins, M. M., Nightingale, P. and Kraft, A. 2009. " On a critical path: Genomics, the crisis of pharmaceutical productivity and the search for sustainability ". In Hand book of genetics and society, Edited by: Atkinson, P., Glasner, P. and Lock, M. 145 - 62. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
47. Matthews, K. and Rowland, M. 2011. Stem cells and biomedical research in Texas, Houston, TX: Science & Technology Policy: James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University.
48. Meyer, M. 2000. What is special about patent citations? The differences between scientific and patent citation. Scientometrics, 49 (1): 93 - 123.
49. Moed, H. 2002. The impact factors debate: The ISI's uses and limits. Nature, 415: 731 - 32.
50. Morgan Jones, M. and Grant, J. 2011. Complex trauma research in the UK, Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe.
51. Morillo, F., Bordons, M. and Gomez, I. 2003. Interdisciplinarity in science: A tentative typology of disciplines and research areas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54: 1237 - 49.
52. Murray, F. 2002. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technical networks: Exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31 (8-9): 1389 - 407.
53. NESTA. 2006. The innovation gap, London: NESTA.
54. Nicholaisen, J. 2008. Citation analysis. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41: 409 - 41.
55. Nuffield, Council on Bioethics. 2012. Emerging biotechnologies: Full report, London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
56. OECD. 2005. A framework for biotechnology statistics, Paris: OECD.
57. OECD. 2009. 2009. Biotechnology statistics, Paris: OECD.
58. Patel, P. 2012. Indicators of innovation performance, 137 - 95. London: Imperial College Press. From Knowledge Management to Strategic Competence, Series on Technology Management 19.
59. Pavitt, K. 1985. Patent statistics as indicators. Scientometrics, 7 (1-2): 77 - 99.
60. Porter, T. 1992. Quantification and the accounting ideal in science. Social Studies of Science, 22: 633 - 51.
61. Porter, T. 1996. Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62. Power, M. 2004. Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57: 765 - 83.
63. Power, M. 2005. The invention of operational risk. Review of International Political Economy, 12: 577 - 99.
64. Pudovkin, A. and Garfield, E. 2002. Algorithmic procedure for finding semantically related journals. Journal of the American Society for Informaiton Science and Technology, 53: 1113 - 19.
65. Rafols, I., Hopkins, M., Hoekman, J., Siepel, J., O'Hare, A., Perianes-Rodriguez, A. and Nightingale, P. 2012. Big pharma, little science? A bibliometric perspective on big pharma's R&D decline. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.007
66. Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the black box: Technology and economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Rothman, H. and Kraft, A. 2006. Downstream and into deep biology: Evolving business models in 'top tier' genomics companies. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 12 (2): 86 - 98.
68. Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality, London: Allen Lane.
69. Sismondo, S. 2007. Ghost management: How much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry?. PLoS Medicine, 4 e286.
70. Sismondo, S. 2009. Ghosts in the machine. Social Studies of Science, 39: 171 - 98.
71. Star, S. and Griesemer, J. 1989. Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-93. Social Studies of Science, 19: 387 - 420.
72. Smith, A., Vorβ, J. and Grin, J. 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective, and its challenges. Research Policy, 39: 435 - 48.
73. Strumsky, D., Lobo, J. and vander Leeuw, S. 2012. Using patent technology codes to study technological change. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21 (3): 267 - 86.
74. Tan, D. and Roberts, P. 2010. Categorical coherence, classification volatility and examiner-added citations. Research Policy, 39: 89 - 102.
75. Thomson Reuters 2012. The Thomson Reuters Journal Selection Process. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/journal_selection_process/ (Revised May 2012).
76. van Leeuwen, T., Moed, H., Tijssen, R., Visser, M. and Van Raan, A. 2001. Language biases in the coverage of the science citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51 (1): 335 - 46.
77. Verbong, G. and Geels, F. 2007. The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004). Energy Policy, 35: 1025 - 37.
78. Veugelers, R. 2005. An economists' view on bibliometrically measuring scientific research. Measurement, 3 (1): 33 - 37.
79. Williams, S. J., Martin, P. and Gabe, J. 2011. The pharmaceuticalisation of society? A framework for analysis. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33: 710 - 25.
80. Yang, Y., Akers, L., Klose, T. and Yang, C. B. 2008. Text mining and visualization tools-impressions of emerging capabilities. World Patent Information, 30: 280 - 93.