Interaction between science and technology in the field of fuel cells based on patent paper analysis

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyse and explore the characteristics of patent–paper pairs (PPPs) in the field of fuel cells. Design/methodology/approach The authors used bibliometric analysis to analyse the bibliometric records of PPPs identified from 20,758 papers and 8,112 utility patents between 1991 and 2010. Findings The findings show that the percentages of papers and patents constituting PPPs were low, but an increasing trend was identified in the absolute number of PPPs. Researchers affiliated with research institutions were the primary contributors to PPPs. Countries with the most papers and patents had the most PPPs, exploiting the advantage of dual knowledge creation. Similar growth trends were observed in the numbers of patents approved and papers published. Patents in PPPs were typically produced earlier than the papers in PPPs. On average, patents were applied for approximately four years before papers were published, and patents were approved only approximately four months before papers were published. Research limitations/implications While the study was limited to the PPPs in the field of fuel cells, PPPs analysis can be applied to numerous fields. Originality/value PPPs indicate the coactivity of researchers involved in publishing and patenting. Although this coactivity has been studied, few studies have investigated PPPs. This study helps us better understand the characteristics of papers and patents constituting PPPs, changes in the annual numbers of papers and patents constituting PPPs, delays between papers and patents, as well as individuals, institutions and countries producing numerous PPPs.

[1]  Scott Stern,et al.  Intellectual Property Rights and the Evolution of Scientific Journals as Knowledge Platforms , 2012 .

[2]  F. Lissoni,et al.  Inventorship and Authorship in Patent-Publication Pairs: an Enquiry into the Economics of Scientific Credit , 2008 .

[3]  J. Gans,et al.  Patents, Papers, Pairs & Secrets: Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge * , 2008 .

[4]  Fiona E. Murray.  Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[5]  Francesco Lissoni,et al.  Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit , 2013 .

[6]  Anastassios Pouris,et al.  Is patenting of technical inventions in university sectors impeding the flow of scientific knowledge to the public? a case study of South Africa , 2010 .

[7]  Fiona E. Murray,et al.  Entrepreneurial Experiments in Science Policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project , 2009 .

[8]  Martin Meyer.  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 , 2006 .

[9]  Philippe Ducor,et al.  Coauthorship and Coinventorship , 2000, Science.

[10]  F. Lissoni,et al.  Guest Authors or Ghost Inventors? Inventorship and Authorship Attribution in Academic Science , 2015, Evaluation review.

[11]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Patent and Publication Activities of German Professors: An Empirical Assessment of Their Co-Activity , 2007 .

[12]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Does University Licensing Facilitate or Restrict the Flow of Knowledge and Research Inputs Among Scientists , 2014 .

[13]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Large firms and the science-technology interface Patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films , 2003, Scientometrics.

[14]  R. Merton.  Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. , 1957 .

[15]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Knowledge Specialization, Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More than They Make? , 2001 .

[16]  H. Roberts Coward,et al.  Identifying the Science-Technology Interface: Matching Patent Data to a Bibliometric Model , 1989 .

[17]  Henry Sauermann,et al.  Credit Where Credit is Due? The Impact of Project Contributions and Social Factors on Authorship and Inventorship , 2012 .

[18]  Fiona E. Murray,et al.  Does Patent Strategy Shape the Long-Run Supply of Public Knowledge? , 2016 .

[19]  Hariolf Grupp,et al.  Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research , 1994 .

[20]  Michael Strevens,et al.  The role of the priority rule in science , 2003 .

[21]  Koenraad Debackere,et al.  In search of anti-commons, patent-paper pairs in biotechnology, an analysis of citation flows , 2011 .

[22]  P Ducor.  Intellectual property. Coauthorship and coinventorship. , 2000, Science.

[23]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality and Direction of (Public) Research Output , 2009 .