Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration

Co-authorship analysis is a well-established tool in bibliometric analysis. It can be used at various levels to trace collaborative links between individuals, organisations, or countries. Increasingly, informetric methods are applied to patent data. It has been shown for another method that bibliometric tools cannot be applied without difficulty. This is due to the different process in which a patent is filed, examined, and granted and a scientific paper is submitted, refereed and published. However, in spite of the differences, there are also parallels between scholarly papers and patents. For instance, both papers and patents are the result of an intellectual effort, both disclose relevant information, and both are subject to a process of examination. Given the similarities, we shall raise the question as to which extent one can transfer co-authorship analysis to patent data.

[1]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations , 2000, Scientometrics.

[2]  Richard D. Walker,et al.  Patents as scientific and technical literature , 1995 .

[3]  Derek deS. Price,et al.  The Science/Technology Relationship, the Craft of Experimental Science, and Policy for the Improvement of High Technology Innovation : Research Policy , 1987 .

[4]  M. Meyer Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .

[5]  Francis Narin,et al.  Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers , 1991, Scientometrics.

[6]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[7]  Olle Persson,et al.  Studying research collaboration using co-authorships , 1996, Scientometrics.

[8]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[9]  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.

[10]  Hildrun Kretschmer,et al.  Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[11]  C D Leake,et al.  Future of the University. , 1965, Science.

[12]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Double effort = Double impact? A critical view at international co-authorship in chemistry , 2004, Scientometrics.

[13]  D. Price Is Technology Historically Independent of Science? A Study in Statistical Historiography , 1965 .

[14]  Olle Persson,et al.  Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix , 2003, Scientometrics.

[15]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness , 2003 .

[16]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors , 2003, Scientometrics.

[17]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Patent Citations in a Novel Field of Technology — What Can They Tell about Interactions between Emerging Communities of Science and Technology? , 2000, Scientometrics.

[18]  K. Pavitt SPRU Electronic Working Paper No 5 The Social Shaping of the National Science Base , 1998 .

[19]  W. Glänzel,et al.  Analysing Scientific Networks Through Co-Authorship , 2004 .

[20]  S. Bhattacharya,et al.  Monitoring technology trends through patent analysis: a case study of thin film , 2001 .

[21]  Elias G. Carayannis,et al.  Transatlantic Innovation Infrastructure Networks: Public-Private, Eu-Us R&D Partnerships , 2004 .

[22]  H. KRETSCHMER,et al.  Patterns of behaviour in coauthorship networks of invisible colleges , 1997, Scientometrics.

[23]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations , 2004, Scientometrics.

[24]  G. Laudel What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .