Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis

This study investigates the knowledge diffusion patterns of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology (N&N) by analyzing the overall research interactions between N&N and nano-related subjects through citation analysis. Three perspectives were investigated to achieve this purpose. Firstly, the overall research interactions were analyzed to identify the dominant driving forces in advancing the development of N&N. Secondly, the knowledge diffusion intensity between N&N and nano-related subjects was investigated to determine the areas most closely related to N&N. Thirdly, the diffusion speed was identified to detect the time distance of knowledge diffusion between N&N and nano-related subjects. The analysis reveals that driving forces from the outside environment rather than within N&N itself make the foremost contributions to the development of N&N. From 1998 to 2007, Material Science, Physics, Chemistry, N&N, Electrical & Electronic and Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering are the key contributory and reference subjects for N&N. Knowledge transfer within N&N itself is the quickest. And the speed of knowledge diffusion from other subjects to N&N is slower than that from N&N to other subjects, demonstrating asymmetry of knowledge diffusion in the development of N&N. The results indicate that N&N has matured into a relatively open, diffuse and dynamic system of interactive subjects.

[1]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents , 2007, Scientometrics.

[2]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1964 .

[3]  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.

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

[5]  P. Romer.  Endogenous Technological Change , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[6]  Zan Huang,et al.  Longitudinal Nanotechnology Development (1991--2002): National Science Foundation Funding and its Impact on Patents , 2005 .

[7]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[8]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Do Patents Reflect the Useful Research Output of Universities , 1998 .

[9]  David M. Waguespack,et al.  Foreignness and the diffusion of ideas , 2005 .

[10]  C. Divya,et al.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnology , 2007 .

[11]  Martin S. Meyer,et al.  Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology , 2001, Scientometrics.

[12]  Masatsura Igami,et al.  Exploration of the evolution of nanotechnology via mapping of patent applications , 2008, Scientometrics.

[13]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  The delineation of nanoscience and nanotechnology in terms of journals and patents: A most recent update , 2008, Scientometrics.

[14]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Patent citation network in nanotechnology (1976–2004) , 2007 .

[15]  D. Parr,et al.  Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? , 2005, Trends in biotechnology.

[16]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[17]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[18]  Hejin Shin.  Research interactivity of cognitive science : a bibliometric analysis of interdisciplinarity , 2000 .

[19]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Nanoscience and nanotecnology on the balance , 1997, Scientometrics.

[20]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People’s Republic of China , 2008 .

[21]  Meyya Meyyappan,et al.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnology , 2009, IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine.

[22]  L. Bettencourt,et al.  The power of a good idea: Quantitative modeling of the spread of ideas from epidemiological models , 2005, physics/0502067.

[23]  G. Grossman,et al.  Innovation and growth in the global economy , 1993 .

[24]  J. Profetto-McGrath,et al.  The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004 , 2008, Implementation science : IS.

[25]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system , 2009, Scientometrics.

[26]  M.M.S. Karki,et al.  Patent citation analysis: A policy analysis tool , 1997 .

[27]  Richard A. L. Jones,et al.  The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[28]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004) , 2007 .

[29]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms , 2007 .

[30]  Rui Guo,et al.  The influence of publication delays on three ISI indicators , 2006, Scientometrics.

[31]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: A preliminary analysis , 2007, Scientometrics.

[32]  R. Tijssen.  Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows , 2001 .

[33]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[34]  M. Meyer,et al.  Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application , 1998, Scientometrics.

[35]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[37]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[38]  Elhanan Helpman,et al.  Quality Ladders and Product Cycles , 1989 .

[39]  Leo Egghe,et al.  The influence of publication delays on the observed aging distribution of scientific literature , 2000 .

[40]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[41]  Adam,et al.  Flows of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories: modeling the flow of patent citations over time and across institutional and geographic boundaries. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  Chaomei Chen,et al.  Tracing knowledge diffusion , 2004, Scientometrics.

[43]  MU-HSUAN HUANG,et al.  Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: A study of Taiwan's high-tech companies , 2003, Scientometrics.

[44]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Global nanotechnology research metrics , 2007, Scientometrics.

[45]  Guang Yu,et al.  The influence of publication delays on impact factors , 2005, Scientometrics.

[46]  Ronald N. Kostoff,et al.  Relation of seminal nanotechnology document production to total nanotechnology document production — South Korea , 2008, Scientometrics.

[47]  M. Amin,et al.  Impact factors: use and abuse. , 2003, Medicina.

[48]  J. Youtie,et al.  Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs , 2008 .

[49]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency , 2007, Scientometrics.

[50]  Cx Amsterdam,et al.  Is the United States Losing Ground in Science? A Global Perspective on the World Science System , 2009 .

[51]  Walter L. Warnick,et al.  The Digital Road to Scientific Knowledge Diffusion: A Faster, Better Way to Scientific Progress? , 2006, D Lib Mag..

[52]  Zan Huang,et al.  International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .

[53]  Weimao Ke,et al.  Mapping the diffusion of scholarly knowledge among major U.S. research institutions , 2006, Scientometrics.