New Indicators of the Technological Impact of Scientific Production

doi:10.2478/jdis-2021-0028

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Building upon pioneering work by Francis Narin and others, a new methodological approach to assessing the technological impact of scientific research is presented.
Design/methodology/approach: It is based on the analysis of citations made in patent families included in the PATSTAT database that is to scientific papers indexed in Scopus.
Findings: An advanced citation matching procedure is applied to the data in order to construct two indicators of technological impact: on the citing (patent) side, the country/region in which protection is sought and a patent family’s propensity to cite scientific papers are taken into account, and on the cited (paper) side, a relative citation rate is defined for patent citations to papers that is similar to the scientific paper-to-paper citation rate in classical bibliometrics.
Research limitations: The results are limited by the available data, in our case Scopus and PATSTAT, and especially by the lack of standardization of references in patents. This required a matching procedure that is neither trivial nor exact.
Practical implications: Results at the country/region, document type, and publication age levels are presented. The country/region-level results in particular reveal features that have remained hidden in analyses of straight counts. Especially notable is that the rankings of some Asian countries/regions move upwards when the proposed normalized indicator of technological impact is applied as against the case with straight counts of patent citations to those countries/regions’ published papers.
Originality/value: In our opinion, the level of sophistication of the indicators proposed in the current paper is unparalleled in the scientific literature, and provides a solid basis for the assessment of the technological impact of scientific research in countries/regions and institutions.

Key words: Technological Impact, Patents, Scientometric, PATSTAT, Scopus

Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote, Henk F. Moed, Félix Moya-Anegón. "New Indicators of the Technological Impact of Scientific Production." Journal of Data and Information Science(2020). 10.2478/jdis-2021-0028

Figures/Tables 1

References

[1] Ahmadpoor, M., & Jones, B.F. (2017). The dual frontier: Patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science, 357(6351), 583-587.
[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
[3] Bryan K.A., Ozcan Y., & Sampat B. (2020). In-text patent citations: A user’s guide. Research Policy, 49(4), 103946.
[4] Callaert J., Pellens M., & Van Looy B. (2014). Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents. Scientometrics, 98(3), 1617-1629.
[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
[6] Derwent. (200720072007). 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
[7] European Patent Office. (2019). Data catalog Patstat global. Versión 5.13. EPO Patstat customers. https://www.epo.org
[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
[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
[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
[11] Hane, P.J. (2004). “Elsevier announces Scopus service”. Information today. http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/nbreader.asp?ArticleID=16494 (accessed: 01/06/2020).
[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.
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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).
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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.
[26] Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237-249.
[27] Narin F., Hamilton K.S., & Olivastro D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy, 26, 317-330.
[28] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). OECD Patent Statistics Manual, OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oecdpatentstatisticsmanual.htm
[29] Pickering, B. (2004). “Elsevier prepares Scopus to rival ISI Web of science”. Information world review, n. 8.
[30] Poege F., Harhoff D., Gaessler F., & Baruffaldi S. (2019). Science quality and the value of inventions. Science advances, 5(12), easy7323.
[31] Price, D.J.D (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
[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
[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.
[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
[35] SCImago Research Group. (2010). SIR Methodology: General Considerations. https://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php (accessed: 01/06/2020).
[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).
[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.
[38] Veugelers, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Scientific novelty and technological impact. Research Policy, 48(6), 1362-1372.
[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