Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices

Bubela, Tania; Gold, E. Richard; Graff, G. D.; Cahoy, Daniel R.; Nicol, Dianne; Castle, David

doi:10.1038/nbt.2521

Cited by 42 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patent landscaping has previously been described, for the most part, as relatively simplistic 5 , and much of the analysis recorded and observed in our study supports this. A large proportion of papers presents numbers of patents over time, patents per geographical region, patents per assignee or inventor, or other count data (Fig.…”

Section: Pat E N T Ssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The findings of this systematic review are congruent with similar investigations that have been conducted in other fields reporting omissions in methods 28,29 (including statistical methods 30 ), incomplete presentation of data thereby preventing analysis in the future 31 and inadequate statements for conflicts of interest 32 . The findings also provide empirical evidence for statements previously made in relation to the quality of patent landscapes 5 . To address reporting issues in other fields, a great number of reporting guidelines have been developed, including checklists of items that should generally be reported, and which together represent an adequately reported study.…”

Section: Pat E N T Ssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…P atents in the life sciences are a critical metric of innovation and a cornerstone for the commercialization of new life-scienceand healthcare-related technologies. Patent landscaping has emerged as a methodology for analyzing multiple patent documents to uncover technological trends 1 , geographic distributions of patents 2 , patenting trends and scope 3 , highly cited patents 4 and a number of other uses 5 . Many such analyses are published in high-impact journals [6][7][8] , potentially allowing them to gain high visibility among academic, industry and government stakeholders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, the process comprises three main stages: (i) designing and conducting searches, (ii) data cleaning and curation, and (iii) data analysis and interpretation 5 . This process is analogous to the process for conducting systematic reviews of academic literature; however, in patent landscapes, the patent documents replace academic articles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evidence of insufficient quality of reporting in patent landscapes in the life sciences

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to assess potential biases. The importance of adequate reporting has been heavily reinforced and policed in healthcare-related research 12-14 , including in systematic reviews 15 ; however, outside of healthcare-related research, discussion has been more limited. Despite the important potential implications of patent landscapes from a scientific, commercial and political perspective, criticism has emerged over a lack of standardization, transparency, clear justification of the methodology, and reporting of the ad hoc investigations being conducted 16,17 .Here, we provide the first systematic assessment of the quality of reporting in patent landscapes in the life sciences that have been published in academic journals. Given the heterogeneous nature of the methodologies used for, and the questions addressed by, patent landscaping 16 , consistent methodological practice may not be practical or useful, and this could indeed stifle innovative methodologies from emerging. Clarity of reporting, however, is essential regardless of the approach taken and the hypotheses tested, and assessment of reporting clarity should represent a significant component of the peer review process and should be expected in scientific articles. Patent landscapes are published in a variety of journal types of different impact factors, and as various different article types (e.g., review articles and original research articles). The relationship between these indicators and reporting quality is also explored.

show abstract

Section: Pat E N T Ssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Pat E N T Ssupporting

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence of insufficient quality of reporting in patent landscapes in the life sciences

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent decades, the rate of patenting has increased significantly across a range of sectors and particularly in the life sciences [Owen-Smith, Powell, 2003;Bubela et al, 2013]. The causes of this rise in patenting activity are complex and differ somewhat across sectors.…”

Section: What Is the Impact Of Ipr On Innovation? Do The Tragedy Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

Foresight and STI Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation Cartography and Patentomics: Past, Present and Future

Lingard¹,

Perry

2016

Global Governance of Intellectual Property in the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Evidence of insufficient quality of reporting in patent landscapes in the life sciences

Evidence of insufficient quality of reporting in patent landscapes in the life sciences

Untitled

Innovation Cartography and Patentomics: Past, Present and Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About