, Volume 114, Issue 3, pp 951–970 | Cite as

A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems

  • Shu-Hao Chang


Methods to link academic research achievements with innovative industries have gained considerable awareness worldwide in recent years. Subsequently, responding to industries’ demand to reinforce the linkage between scientific research and industries is an issue awaiting urgent resolution for the government. Previous scientific pertaining to the linkage between scientific fields and (academic papers) technological fields (technology patents) primarily focus on non-patent research or university–industry collaboration. However, these studies failed to highlight the type of linkages between science and technological fields. Therefore, we conducted a pilot study to identify the core scientific fields in different technological fields. In addition to the proposed network maps linking scientific and technological fields, this study also identified the core scientific fields for patent development, including materials science, multidisciplinary; engineering, chemical; physics, applied; nanoscience and nanotechnology; and chemistry, physical. Due to the scarcity of research pertaining to the linkage of scientific fields and technological fields, the government, research and development units, and universities lack a framework for linking fundamental scientific research with the development of industry technologies. Therefore, in this study, we used an author–inventor network to analyze this research topic, expecting that the results can serve as a reference for further research.


Author–inventor network Patent analysis Network analysis Classification system 



Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (Grant No. Most 106-2410-H-492-002).


  1. Albino, V., Ardito, L., Dangelico, R. M., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2014). Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis. Applied Energy, 135, 836–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alessandrini, M., Klose, K., & Pepper, M. S. (2013). University entrepreneurship in South Africa: Developments in technology transfer practices. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basberg, B. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bass, S. D., & Kurgan, L. A. (2010). Discovery of factors influencing patent value based on machine learning in patents in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 82(2), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bassecoulard, E., & Zitt, M. (2004). Patents and publications: The lexical connection. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: the use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 665–694). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Bodas Freitas, I. M., Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2013). Finding the right partners: Institutional and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions. Research Policy, 42(1), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarily and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonvillian, W. B. (2014). The new model innovation agencies: An overview. Science & Public Policy, 41(4), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2008). Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names. Journal of Informetrics, 2(3), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breschi, S., & Catalini, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39(1), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calvert, J., & Patel, P. (2003). university–industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends. Science Public Policy, 30(2), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casper, S. (2013). The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy, 42(8), 1313–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choe, H., & Lee, D. H. (2017). The structure and change of the research collaboration network in Korea (2000–2011): Network analysis of joint patents. Scientometrics, 111(2), 917–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fenga, H. I., Chena, C. S., Wanga, C. H., & Chiang, H. C. (2012). The role of intellectual capital and university technology transfer offices in university-based technology transfer. The Service Industries Journal, 32(6), 899–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Festel, G. (2013). Academic spin-offs, corporate spin-outs and company internal start-ups as technology transfer approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). Anew classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56(3), 357–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Godin, B. (1995). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25(4), 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: How robust are composite indicators? Research Policy, 33(9), 1373–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science–technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ho, M. H. C., Liu, J. S., Lu, W. M., & Huang, C. C. (2014). A new perspective to explore the technology transfer efficiencies in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 247–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hsu, C. L., & Chiang, C. H. (2015). The financial crisis research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105(1), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang, M. H., Dong, H. R., & Chen, D. Z. (2013). The unbalanced performance and regional differences in scientific and technological collaboration in the field of solar cells. Scientometrics, 94(1), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, M. H., Yang, H. W., & Chen, D. Z. (2015). Industry-academia collaboration in fuel cells: A perspective from paper and patent analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1301–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacsó, P. (2011). The h-index, h-core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the Web of Science database in three configurations. Online Information Review, 35(5), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ju, Y., & Sohn, S. (2015). Identifying patterns in rare earth element patents based on text and data mining. Scientometrics, 102(1), 389–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff, L., Alkemade, F., Heimeriks, G., & Hoekstra, R. (2015). Patents as instruments for exploring innovation dynamics: Geographic and technological perspectives on ‘photovoltaic cells’. Scientometrics, 102(1), 629–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff, L., Carley, S., & Rafols, I. (2013). Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science Categories. Scientometrics, 94(2), 589–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff, L., Kushnir, D., & Rafols, I. (2014). Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on International Patent Classification (IPC). Scientometrics, 98(3), 1583–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, W. Y. C., Chen, D. Z., & Huang, M. H. (2011). Relation between technology and science: A perspective of patent and paper production. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 48(3), 303–323.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, G. (2013). Visualization of patents and papers in terahertz technology: A comparative study. Scientometrics, 94(3), 1037–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maraut, S., & Martínez, C. (2014). Identifying author-inventors from Spain: Methods and a first insight into results. Scientometrics, 101(1), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meyer, M. (2003). Are academic patents an indicator of useful university research? Research Evaluation, 12(1), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor–authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Montecchi, T., Russo, D., & Liu, Y. (2013). Searching in Cooperative Patent Classification: Comparison between keyword and concept-based search. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 27(3), 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mueller, S. C., Sandner, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2015). Monitoring innovation in electrochemical energy storage technologies: A patent-based approach. Applied Energy, 137, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Narin, F., Noma, E., & Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research Policy, 16(2–4), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Noyons, E. C. M., Buter, R. K., van Raan, A. F. J., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., & Rangnow, R. (2004). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe: Nanoscience and nanotechnology. Leiden, NL: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2008). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris, FR: OECD.Google Scholar
  45. Okamuro, K., & Nishimura, J. (2013). Impact of university intellectual property policy on the performance of university–industry research collaboration. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(3), 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Park, H., & Kang, J. (2009). Patterns of scientific and technological knowledge flows based on scientific papers and patents. Scientometrics, 81(3), 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Paul-Hus, A., Desrochers, N., & Costas, R. (2016). Characterization, description, and considerations for the use of funding acknowledgement data in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 108(1), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ponomariov, B. (2013). Government-sponsored university–industry collaboration and the production of nanotechnology patents in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2012). How governments seek to bridge the financing gap for university spin-offs: Proof-of-concept, pre-seed, and seed funding. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(7), 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sandal, N., & Kumar, A. (2016). Searching and analysing patent document to solve R&D problems. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 36(2), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmoch, U., Dornbusch, F., Mallig, N., Michels, C., Schulze, N., & Bethke, N. (2012). Vollständige Erfassung von Patentan-meldungen aus Universitäten. Accessed 5 July 2017.
  53. Schoen, A., Heinisch, D., & Buenstorf, G. (2014). Playing the ‘Name Game’ to identify academic patents in Germany. Scientometrics, 101(1), 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sherry, E. F., & Teece, D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation. Research Policy, 33(2), 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soon, C., & Cho, H. (2011). Flows of relations and communication among Singapore political bloggers and organizations: The networked public sphere approach. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Subramanian, A. M., & Soh, P. H. (2010). An empirical examination of the science–technology relationship in the biotechnology industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(3/4), 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swar, B., & Khan, G. F. (2013). An analysis of the information technology outsourcing domain: A social network and triple helix approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2366–2378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Testa, J. (2016). The Thomson Reuters journal selection process. Accessed 23 October 2016.
  59. Thomson Reuters (2014). Incites indicators handbook. Accessed 10 July 2017.
  60. Thomson Reuters (2016). Web of Science subject areas. Accessed 23 October 2016.
  61. Van der Valk, T., Chappin, M. M., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waltman, L., & Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, G., & Guan, J. (2011). Measuring science-technology interactions using patent citations and author-inventor links: An exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13(12), 6245–6262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang, X., Wang, Z., Huang, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Ren, H., et al. (2017). Measuring interdisciplinarity of a research system: Detecting distinction between publication categories and citation categories. Scientometrics, 111(3), 2023–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. White, M. (2010). Patent searching: Back to the future how to use patent classification search tools to create better searches. In First Annual Conference of the Canadian Engineering Education Association, Kingston, Ontario.Google Scholar
  68. WIPO (2013). The IPC-technology concordance table. Accessed 26 October 2016.
  69. WIPO. (2016). 2016 World intellectual property indicators. Geneva, CH: World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
  70. Wong, C. Y., Fatimah Mohamad, Z., Keng, Z. X., & Ariff Azizan, S. (2014). Examining the patterns of innovation in low carbon energy science and technology: Publications and patents of Asian emerging economies. Energy Policy, 73, 789–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhai, L., Pan, Y., Guo, Y., Ma, Z., & Bi, F. (2014). International comparative study on nanofiltration membrane technology based on relevant publications and patents. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1361–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Applied Research LaboratoriesTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations