Have a personal or library account? Click to login

New Indicators of the Technological Impact of Scientific Production

Journal of Data and Information Science
Volume 6 (2021): Issue 4 (November 2021)
By:
Open Access
|Jun 2021

References

  1. Ahmadpoor, M., & Jones, B.F. (2017). The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science, 357(6351), 583–587.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Archambault, E., Campbell, D., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2009). “Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (7), 1320–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21062
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Bryan, K.A., Ozcan, Y., & Sampat, B. (2020). In-text patent citations: A user's guide. Research Policy, 49(4), 103946.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Callaert, J., Pellens, M., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1617–1629.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Coffano, M., & Tarasconi, G. (2014). Crios—Patstat database: Sources, contents and access rules. Center for Research on Innovation, Organization and Strategy, Crios Working Paper n. 1. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2404344 (accessed: 01/06/2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2404344
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Derwent. (2007). World Patents Index—Derwent patentee codes, Revised edition 8. Thomson Corporation. Leuven Manual. ISBN: 0 901157 38 4. http://ips.clarivate.com/m/pdfs/mgr/patenteecodes.pdf
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. European Patent Office. (2019). Data catalog Patstat global. Versión 5.13. EPO Patstat customers. https://www.epo.org
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., & Wieland, M. (2011). “Galton 2011 revisited: A bibliometric journey in the footprints of a universal genius”. Scientometrics, 88(2), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0393-y
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Guerrero-Bote, V.P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2015). “Analysis of scientific production in food science from 2003 to 2013”. Journal of food science, 80(12), R2619–R2626. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13108
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Sánchez-Jiménez, R., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2019). “The citation from patents to scientific output revisited: A new approach to Patstat / Scopus matching”. El profesional de la información, 28(4), e280401. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.01
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Hane, P.J. (2004). “Elsevier announces Scopus service”. Information today. http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16494 (accessed: 01/06/2020).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Hinze, S., & Schmoch, U. (2004). Opening the black box. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., and Schmoch, U. (2004) (eds.). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht (the Netherlands): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 215–235.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Jacsó, P. (2011). “The h-index, h-core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the Scopus database”. Online information review, 35(3), 492–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111151487
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Jefferson, O.A., Jaffe, A., Ashton, D., Warren, B., Koellhofer, D., Dulleck, U., Bilder, G., Ballagh, A., Moe, J., DiCuccio, M., Ward, K., Bilder, G., Dolby, K., & Jefferson, R.A. (2018). “Mapping the global influence of published research on industry and innovation”. Nature biotechnology, 36(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0818-772a
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Kang, B., & Tarasconi, G. (2016). “Patstat revisited: Suggestions for better usage”. World patent information, 46, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2016.06.001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Leydesdorff, L., Moya Anegón, F., & Guerrero-Bote, V.P. (2010). “Journal maps on the basis of Scopus data: A comparison with the Journal Citation Reports of the ISI”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(2), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21250
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Lissoni, F. (2012). “Academic patenting in Europe: An overview of recent research and new perspectives”. World patent information, 34(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2012.03.002
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. Lotti, F., & Marin, G. (2013). “Matching of Patstat applications to AIDA firms: Discussion of the methodology and results”. Bank of Italy occasional paper, n. 166. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2283111 (accessed: 01/06/2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2283111
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Lundberg, J. (2007). “Lifting the crown—citation z-score”. Journal of Informetrics, 1(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.007
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Magerman, T., Van-Looy, B., & Song, X.Y. (2006). Data production methods for harmonized patent statistics: Patentee name standardization. Technical report, K.U. Leuven. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3888793/5836029/KS-AV-06-002-EN.PDF (accessed: 01/06/2020).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Maraut, S., & Martínez, C. (2014). “Identifying author–inventors from Spain: Methods and a first insight into results”. Scientometrics, 101(1), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1409-1
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Martínez, C. (2011). “Patent families: When do different definitions really matter?”, Scientometrics, v. 86, pp. 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0251-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F.J., González-Molina, A., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). “Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach”. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Moya-Anegón, F., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., López-Illescas, C., & Moed, H.F. (2018). “Statistical relationships between corresponding authorship, international co-authorship and citation impact of national research systems”. Journal of informetrics, 12(4), 1251–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.004
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Moya-Anegón, F., López-Illescas, C., Guerrero-Bote, V.P., & Moed, H.F. (2020). The citation impact of social sciences and humanities upon patentable technology. Scientometrics, to be published.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237–249.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD Patent Statistics Manual, OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oecdpatentstatisticsmanual.htm
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Pickering, B. (2004). “Elsevier prepares Scopus to rival ISI Web of science”. Information world review, n. 8.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. Poege, F., Harhoff, D., Gaessler, F., & Baruffaldi, S. (2019). Science quality and the value of inventions. Science advances, 5(12), easy7323.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. Price, D.J.D (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. Raffo, J.D., & Lhuillery, S. (2009). “How to play the ‘Names game’: Patent retrieval comparing different heuristics”. Research policy, 38(10), 1617–1627. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1441172
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. Schmoch, U., & Khan, M. (2019). Methodological challenges for creating patent indicators. In: Glanzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham (Switzerland): Springer Nature, 907–927.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. Schoen, A., Heinisch, D., & Buenstorf, G. (2014). “Playing the ‘Name game’ to identify academic patents in Germany”. Scientometrics, 101(1), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1400-x
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. SCImago Research Group. (2010). SIR Methodology: General Considerations. https://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php (accessed: 01/06/2020).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. Thoma, G., & Torrisi, S. (2007). Creating powerful indicators for innovation studies with approximate matching algorithms. A test based on Patstat and Amadeus databases (No. 211). KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Università Bocconi, Milano, Italy. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.573.8107&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed: 01/06/2020).
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. Van Raan, A.F.J. (2017). Patent Citations Analysis and Its Value in Research Evaluation: A Review and a New Approach to Map Technology-relevant Research. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2, 13–50.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Veugelers, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Scientific novelty and technological impact. Research Policy, 48(6), 1362–1372.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., Visser, M.S., & van Raan, A.F. (2011). “Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations”. Journal of informetrics, 5(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.08.001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0028 | Journal eISSN: 2543-683X | Journal ISSN: 2096-157X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 36 - 61
Submitted on: Mar 5, 2021
Accepted on: Jun 3, 2021
Published on: Jun 24, 2021
Published by: Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
Technological Impact,
Patents,
Scientometric,
PATSTAT,
Scopus
Related subjects:
Computer sciences,
Information technology,
Project management,
Databases and data mining

© 2021 Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote, Henk F. Moed, Félix Moya-Anegón, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 6 (2021): Issue 4 (November 2021)Next article