Nanopatenting patterns in relation to product life cycle

Alencar, Maria Simone de Menezes; Porter, Alan L.; Antunes, Adelaide Maria de Souza

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2007.04.002

Cited by 68 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These patents where obtained by performing a lexical extraction on patents containing nanotechnology related keywords. These keywords were obtained from a set of bibliographic studies (Alencar et al 2007;Fitzgibbons and McNiven 2006;Mogoutov and Kahane 2007;Porter et al 2008;Schmoch et al 2003;Zitt and Bassecoulard 2006). These studies, altogether, use more than 596 distinct keywords in their definition of nanotechnology with only 40 keywords being used in more than one study.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among these, nanotechnology has been experiencing rapid development which leaves traces through growth in research grants, the publication of academic papers and the granting of patents (Hullmann 2006;Kostoff et al 2007;Alencar et al 2007;Takeda et al 2009;Porter et al 2008;Dang et al 2010;Grieneisen 2010). Numerous countries have put in place initiatives to foster their scientific and technological capabilities in this field (Alencar et al 2007;Li et al 2009). Nanotechnology results from the combination and integration of scientific and technological concepts from different fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, material sciences, mechanics and electronics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Document publié chez l'éditeur commercial ABSTRACTDiscovering and assessing fields of expertise in emerging technologies from patent data is not straightforward. First, patent classification in an emerging technology being far from complete, the definitions of the various applications of its inventions are embedded within communities of practice. Because patents must contain full record of prior art, co-citation networks can, in theory, be used to identify and delineate the inventive effort of these communities of practice. However, the use patent citations for the purpose of measuring technological relatedness is not obvious because they can be added by examiners. Second, the assessment of the development stage of emerging industries has been mostly done through simple patent counts. Because patents are not all valuable, a better way of evaluating an industry's stage of development would be to use multiple patent quality metrics as well as economic activity agglomeration indicators. The purpose of this article is to validate the use of 1) patent citations as indicators of technological relatedness, and 2) multiple indicators for assessing an industry's development stage. Greedy modularity optimization of the 'Canadian-made' nanotechnology patent co-citation network shows that patent citations can effectively be used as indicators of technological relatedness. Furthermore, the use of multiple patent quality and economic agglomeration indicators offers better assessment and forecasting potential than simple patent counts.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the purpose of this research and in order to have precise data on nanotechnology-related publications in the US, we combined the keywords from various keyword search strategies of several scholars (Alencar et al 2007;Mogoutov and Kahane 2007;Noyons et al 2003;Porter et al 2008;Zucker and Darby 2005;Zitt and Bassecoulard 2006) while removing the redundant keywords after consulting with nanotechnology experts. We believe that the final set of keywords is quite comprehensive and is able to effectively identify articles directly related to nanotechnology.…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Document publié chez l'éditeur commercial AbstractThis paper presents cross-country comparisons between Canada and the United States in terms of the impact of public grants and scientific collaborations on subsequent nanotechnology-related publications.In this study we present the varying involvement of academic researchers and government funding to capture the influence of funded research in order to help government agencies evaluate their efficiency in financing nanotechnology research. We analyze the measures of quantity and quality of research output using time-related econometric models and compare the results between nanotechnology scientists in Canada and the United States. The results reveal that both research grants and the position of researchers in co-publication networks have a positive influence on scientific output. Our findings demonstrate that research funding yields a significantly positive linear impact in Canada and a positive non-linear impact in the United States on the number of papers and in terms of the number of citations we observe a positive impact only in the US. Our research shows that the position of scientists in past scientific networks plays an important role in the quantity and quality of papers published by nanotechnology scientists.

show abstract

“…These keywords are obtained from bibliographic studies on nanotechnologies (Alencar et al, 2007;Fitzgibbons and McNiven, 2006;Mogoutov and Kahane, 2007;Porter et al, 2008;Schmoch et al, 2003;Zitt and Bassecoulard, 2006). These studies, altogether, use more than 596 distinct keywords in their definition of nanotechnology.…”

Section: Cluster Labelingmentioning

confidence: 99%