Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the case of nanotechnologies

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are considered important for the development of science, technology and innovation, and the study of their characters can be a great help to the decisions of policy makers and of practitioners. This work is centred on the issue of the time relations between science and technology/innovation, and in particular on the speed of transfer of science-generated knowledge towards its exploitation in patenting. A methodology based on patent citations is used in order to measure the time lag between cited journal articles and citing patent, and thus the time proximity between the two steps. Keywords regarding nanotechnology/nanoscience items are searched in order to collect data useful for the analysis. Collateral measures, performed on another class of materials and on the spatial origin of citing/cited documents, help giving evidence of the peculiarity of the behaviour and on its nature. The most representative time lag between production of scientific knowledge and its technological exploitation appears being around 3–4 years.

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

[2]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Measuring science-technology interaction in the knowledge-driven economy: The case of a small economy , 2003, Scientometrics.

[3]  A. Stankiewicz,et al.  DIVERSIFICATION AND HYBRIDIZATION IN FIRM KNOWLEDGE BASES IN NANOTECHNOLOGIES , 2010 .

[4]  Vincenzo Balzani,et al.  Nanoscience and nanotechnology: a personal view of a chemist. , 2005, Small.

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

[6]  Eric Avenel,et al.  Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies , 2007, 0911.3476.

[7]  J. Youtie,et al.  Refining search terms for nanotechnology , 2008 .

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

[9]  Ulrich Schmoch,et al.  Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators , 2005, Scientometrics.

[10]  Stefano Breschi,et al.  Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks , 2010 .

[11]  Laura I. Schultz,et al.  Methods for identifying emerging General Purpose Technologies: a case study of nanotechnologies , 2010, Scientometrics.

[12]  Ugo Finardi,et al.  Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players , 2012 .

[13]  S. Bordiga,et al.  Selective catalysis and nanoscience: an inseparable pair. , 2007, Chemistry.

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

[15]  H. van Kempen,et al.  Scanning tunnelling microscopy , 1992 .

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

[17]  Can Huang,et al.  Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies , 2011 .

[18]  Bart Verspagen,et al.  Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents , 2005 .

[19]  H. Kroto,et al.  C 60 Buckminsterfullerene , 1990 .

[20]  Kumiko Miyazaki,et al.  An empirical analysis of nanotechnology research domains , 2010 .

[21]  F. Montobbio,et al.  Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations , 2009 .

[22]  Mario Coccia,et al.  Research trends in nanotechnology studies across geo-economic areas , 2010 .

[23]  Gerd Karl Binnig,et al.  Scanning Tunneling Microscopy , 1996 .

[24]  S. Iijima.  Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon , 1991, Nature.

[25]  G. Martra,et al.  Nanoscale Cu supported catalysts in the partial oxidation of cyclohexane with molecular oxygen , 2007 .

[26]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .

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

[28]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T , 2007, 0911.3323.

[29]  E. Landi,et al.  Crystallinity in apatites: how can a truly disordered fraction be distinguished from nanosize crystalline domains? , 2006, Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine.

[30]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Longitudinal study on patent citations to academic research articles in nanotechnology (1976–2004) , 2007 .

[31]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

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

[33]  Wolfgang Glänzel,et al.  Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations , 2004, Scientometrics.