Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature

Kostoff, Ronald N.; Koytcheff, Raymond G.; Lau, Clifford G. Y.

doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9224-8

Cited by 42 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many different disciplines are involved, and only a few universities have dedicated departments. Therefore the definition of scientists active in the field is generally done by counting those researchers that have at least one publication in the field, rather than by focusing upon dedicated departments (Kostoff et al 2007;Porter et al 2008;Zitt and Bassecoulard 2006). Nanotechnology appears to be a field with strong complementarities, where, new advancements often emerge at the interfaces between science and technology (Roco and Bainbridge 2002).…”

Section: Patenting-publishing In Nanotechnology and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is the prominent scientist the one who becomes an inventor? A matching of Swedish academic pairs in nanoscience to examine the effect of publishing on patenting

Bourelos

Beyhan

McKelvey

2017

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanoscience is an innovation intensive interdisciplinary field, where science and technology are closely related during development. Sweden represents an interesting setting to examine how they are related, because a high fraction of the total Swedish academic patents can be classified as Nanoscience. Combining bibliometric data from Web of Science, patent data from EPO and data from Swedish universities, this paper identifies all authors and all inventors listed on patents who work at universities, within nanotechnology in Sweden. The main question we address is if prominent academic scientists in terms of scientific publications are also the ones who become academic inventors. Publications are examined in terms of published articles and invention in terms of patents. The paper uses a novel semi-parametric technique, namely a conditional regression in a matched sample, in order to isolate the effect of publishing on patenting. The novelty of this paper is that it applies a conditional logistic regression in matches of academic pairs in order to isolate the relationship between patentingpublishing in nanoscience. The empirical results show that academics who both publish and patent have on average more publications as well as more citations. Furthermore, having a higher number of citations can increase the probability of having a patent. Thus, by isolating the effects of publishing on patenting, this paper contributes by demonstrating that scientific prominence, indicated both by number of articles and citations, positively impact the propensity to take patents.

show abstract

Section: Patenting-publishing In Nanotechnology and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Later, other methods employing text mining techniques and trying to find out the keywords which best describe the field of nanotechnology have been proposed. Zitt and Bassecoulard (2006), Porter et al (2008) and Kostoff et al (2007) are the most prominent of these studies.…”

Section: Data and Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the prominent scientist the one who becomes an inventor? A matching of Swedish academic pairs in nanoscience to examine the effect of publishing on patenting

Bourelos

Beyhan

McKelvey

2017

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In China, for example, R&D intensity (R&D expenditures as a proportion of the gross domestic product) increased from 0.69 in 1998 to 1.34 in 2005, rising from about 32 percent to almost 60% of the average for developed (OCED) countries over this period (National Science Board 2002. A significant share of these additional R&D resources has been channeled into new fields such as nanotechnology, where China is now the second largest national producer of scientific publications after the United States (Kostoff et al 2007). Although still below the level of the US, the aggregated quality of China's nanotechnology research, as measured by citations to it, is increasing (Youtie et al 2008).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology

Fernández-Ribas

Shapira

2008

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The working papers are produced by The University of Manchester -Manchester Business School and are to be circulated for discussion purposes only. Their contents should be considered to be preliminary. The papers are expected to be published in due course, in a revised form and should not be quoted without the authors' permission. AbstractOur contribution to the expanding literature on the globalization of research and innovation is to investigate the extent to which sector-specific developments in an emerging technology (such as increasing interdisciplinarity and complexity) affect inventive activities developed abroad. We look at how technological diversity and scientific excellence of host countries in the field of nanotechnology affect the development of inventive activities by US multinational companies (MNCs). We identify the most active US-based MNCs in nanotechnology-related patenting and examine location decisions of these companies and their international subsidiaries. Econometric results confirm our hypothesis that technological breadth of host countries positively influence the expected number of inventions developed abroad by US MNCs. S&T capabilities of countries also have a positive impact on the decision to invent abroad, while the influence of market specific factors is less clear. We interpret these results as suggesting that host country S&T capabilities are important to attract innovative activities by MNCs, but as the interdisciplinary and convergent nature of nanotechnology evolves, access to a broadly diversified knowledge base becomes important, increasing the relative attractiveness of host locations. KeywordsMultinationals, Innovation, Location, Patents, Nanotechnology JEL Classification F23, 032, L22How to quote or cite this document Fernández-Ribas, Andrea and Shapira, Philip (2008 March 2008Abstract. Our contribution to the expanding literature on the globalization of research and innovation is to investigate the extent to which sector-specific developments in an emerging technology (such as increasing interdisciplinarity and complexity) affect inventive activities developed abroad. We look at how technological diversity and scientific excellence of host countries in the field of nanotechnology affect the development of inventive activities by US multinational companies (MNCs). We identify the most active US-based MNCs in nanotechnology-related patenting and examine location decisions of these companies and their international subsidiaries. Econometric results confirm our hypothesis that technological breadth of host countries positively influence the expected number of inventions developed abroad by US MNCs. S&T capabilities of countries also have a positive impact on the decision to invent abroad, while the influence of market specific factors is less clear. We interpret these results as suggesting that host country S&T capabilities are important to attract innovative activities by MNCs, but as the interdisciplinary and convergent nature of nanotechnology evolves, access to a bro...

show abstract

“…Particularly the improvement of indigenous industries in developing economies should be an ultimate measure of the success of convergence of science and engineering. The fundamental research has continued the momentum of pursuing excellence by dramatic increase of total number of publication and citations which provide an important basis for impact evaluation of various disciplines (King 2004;Kostoff et al 2007). On the other hand, evaluation emphasis of the engineering success is the quality of the project entity and industrial impact, as well as economical impact.…”

Section: Performance Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unifying Concepts in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering

Chen¹,

Wang²

2014

Handbook of Science and Technology Convergence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution reflects the views on the trends of unification of science and engineering domains motivated by societal needs. The benefits and feasibility of promoting the convergence for advancing society progress as well as creativity in scientific and engineering are discussed, especially with the perspectives from developing economies. The heterogeneity in scientific and engineering disciplines as well as societal priorities should be balanced with systematic analysis during decision-making process.

show abstract

Technical structure of the global nanoscience and nanotechnology literature

Cited by 42 publications

References 6 publications

Is the prominent scientist the one who becomes an inventor? A matching of Swedish academic pairs in nanoscience to examine the effect of publishing on patenting

Is the prominent scientist the one who becomes an inventor? A matching of Swedish academic pairs in nanoscience to examine the effect of publishing on patenting

Technological diversity, scientific excellence and the location of inventive activities abroad: the case of nanotechnology

Unifying Concepts in Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About