|
|
|
| Do Knowledge Attributes from a Heritage and Innovation Perspective Contribute to the Technological Impact of Papers? |
| Li Bing1, Ding Kun2, Sun Xiaoling2, Larivière Vincent3 |
1.School of Information Resource Management, Liaoning University, Shenyang 110136
2.Institute of Science of Science and S&T Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024
3.School of Library and Information Science, University of Montreal, Montreal H3C 3J7 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Citations of scientific papers on patented technologies manifest the technological impact of these papers. However, the types of scientific papers that are more likely to generate technological impact and the extent of that influence remain ambiguous. Unlike the uncertainties associated with external influencing factors, the inherent knowledge within scientific papers remains constant after being published. Consequently, this study adopted a perspective grounded in knowledge heritage and innovation. Publication data from the Web of Science database for papers published between 2000 and 2009 and patent data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) covering 2000 to 2020 were considered. Based on the source, knowledge characteristics were subdivided into interdisciplinary nature and content innovativeness. The aim was to explore whether knowledge characteristics influence the technological impact generated by scientific papers. After determining their influence on the technological impact of scientific papers, the study further analyzed their role in determining the degree of technological impact, including intensity, breadth, and speed. The research revealed that papers characterized by rich interdisciplinary diversity, low balance, distinctiveness, and high levels of innovative content are more likely to have a technological impact. Nonlinear relationships were observed between the interdisciplinary nature in different dimensions and intensity, breadth, and speed of the technological impact. Notably, papers with relatively low levels of content innovativeness tend to have greater power, wider scope, and rapid technological impact. Finally, in considering papers with varying levels of innovation, the effects of variety, balance, and disparity on the speed of technological influence were more pronounced, and the impact of Rao-Stirling on the intensity and breadth of technological influence was more distinct.
|
|
Received: 26 January 2024
|
|
|
|
1 Bush V. Science: the endless frontier[R]. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1945.
2 陈劲, 阳镇, 朱子钦. “十四五”时期“卡脖子”技术的破解: 识别框架、战略转向与突破路径[J]. 改革, 2020(12): 5-15.
3 张善良. 科技创新视阈下基础研究创新成果的形成机理与创新生态模型[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2020(7): 73-81.
4 柳卸林, 何郁冰. 基础研究是中国产业核心技术创新的源泉[J]. 中国软科学, 2011(4): 104-117.
5 Narin F, Hamilton K S, Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science[J]. Research Policy, 1997, 26(3): 317-330.
6 Ke Q. Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, 12(3): 706-717.
7 Fleming L, Sorenson O. Science as a map in technological search[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2004, 25(8/9): 909-928.
8 Arora A, Belenzon S, Suh J. Science and the market for technology[J]. Management Science, 2022, 68(10): 7176-7201.
9 Ahmadpoor M, Jones B F. The dual frontier: patented inventions and prior scientific advance[J]. Science, 2017, 357(6351): 583-587.
10 迟培娟, 丁洁兰, 冷伏海. 突破性论文的三元计量特征及识别研究——以生物医学领域为例[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(7): 663-675.
11 Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-1436.
12 罗卓然, 王玉琦, 钱佳佳, 等. 学术论文创新性评价研究综述[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(7): 780-790.
13 索传军, 盖双双, 周志超. 认知计算——单篇学术论文评价的新视角[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2018, 44(1): 50-61.
14 常霞, 魏绪秋, 张以迪, 等. 基于知识单元属性特征的学术论文创新性评价研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2024, 47(11): 71-80.
15 Shin H, Kim K, Kogler D F. Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge[J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(7): e0271678.
16 Larivière V, Haustein S, B?rner K. Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(3): e0122565.
17 Wang J, Thijs B, Gl?nzel W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(5): e0127298.
18 刘嘉明, 孙建军. 参考文献跨学科性与论文学术影响力的关系研究[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(5): 525-536.
19 Rylance R. Grant giving: global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity[J]. Nature, 2015, 525(7569): 313-315.
20 Pfirman S, Martin P J S. Facilitating interdisciplinary scholars[M]// The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010: 387-403.
21 Porter A L, Roessner J D, Cohen A S, et al. Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture[J]. Research Evaluation, 2006, 15(3): 187-195.
22 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Facilitating interdisciplinary research[M]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005.
23 崔蕴学, 王贤文, 王勇臻. 基于归因分析的引用模式挖掘及其实证研究[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(4): 381-392.
24 Garfield E. Can citation indexing be automated[C]// Proceedings of the Symposium on Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication, 1964: 84-90.
25 Porter A L, Youtie J. How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?[J]. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2009, 11(5): 1023-1041.
26 Meyer M, Persson O. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application[J]. Scientometrics, 1998, 42(2): 195-205.
27 Nelson R R. The simple economics of basic scientific research[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, 67(3): 297-306.
28 林苞, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创新模式与动态——对青霉素和晶体管案例的重新分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(10): 1459-1464.
29 杨中楷, 徐梦真, 韩爽. 基于科学的技术发明如何形成——以汤斯的激光专利为例[J]. 科技管理研究, 2015, 35(21): 256-259, 266.
30 杨杰, 柳美君, 步一, 等. 组合新颖性和学科新颖性能否提升论文的技术影响? 基于直接和间接技术影响力的双重视角[J]. 情报学报, 2025, 44(3): 325-338.
31 李冰, 丁堃, 孙晓玲, 等. 科学论文向技术领域扩散的扩散速度与扩散效果研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2024, 47(7): 35-47.
32 步一, 陈洪侃, 许家伟, 等. 跨学科研究的范式解析: 理解情报学术中的“范式”[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2022, 45(3): 12-18, 34.
33 Stirling A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society[J]. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2007, 4(15): 707-719.
34 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
35 Veugelers R, Wang J. Scientific novelty and technological impact[J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(6): 1362-1372.
36 任海英, 王德营, 王菲菲. 主题词组合新颖性与论文学术影响力的关系研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017, 61(9): 87-93.
37 Wu L F, Wang D S, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
38 Popp D. From science to technology: the value of knowledge from different energy research institutions[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(9): 1580-1594.
39 Wang L L, Li Z X. Knowledge flows from public science to industrial technologies[J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2021, 46(4): 1232-1255.
40 Poege F, Harhoff D, Gaessler F, et al. Science quality and the value of inventions[J]. Science Advances, 2019, 5(12): eaay7323.
41 Gittelman M, Kogut B. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns[J]. Management Science, 2003, 49(4): 366-382.
42 李梦柯, 王芳, 赵兰香. 科学知识特征对基于科学的创新绩效的影响——基于仪器产业的分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2023, 41(4): 708-717.
43 石静, 吴柯烨, 孙建军. 信息来源特征对科学知识采纳的影响研究——基于专利引用的视角[J]. 现代情报, 2023, 43(9): 3-14, 50.
44 Ding C G, Hung W C, Lee M C, et al. Exploring paper characteristics that facilitate the knowledge flow from science to technology[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, 11(1): 244-256.
45 Verbeek A, Debackere K, Luwel M, et al. Linking science to technology: using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes[J]. Scientometrics, 2002, 54(3): 399-420.
46 吴菲菲. 新技术跨产业转移研究[D]. 北京: 北京工业大学, 2013.
47 D’Este P, Llopis O, Rentocchini F, et al. The relationship between interdisciplinarity and distinct modes of university-industry interaction[J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(9): 103799.
48 Kwon S. Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2022, 181: 121767.
49 Ke Q. Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128: 2035-2077.
50 Ke Q. Technological impact of biomedical research: the role of basicness and novelty[J]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(7): 104071.
51 陈昌曙. 自然辩证法概论新编[M]. 2版. 沈阳: 东北大学出版社, 2001.
52 Marx M, Fuegi A. Reliance on science: Worldwide front-page patent citations to scientific articles[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2020, 41(9): 1572-1594.
53 Leydesdorff L, Wagner C S, Bornmann L. Diversity measurement: steps towards the measurement of interdisciplinarity?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2019, 13(3): 904-905.
54 Chen S J, Qiu J P, Arsenault C, et al. Exploring the interdisciplinarity patterns of highly cited papers[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2021, 15(1): 101124.
55 Hicks D, Breitzman A, Hamilton K, et al. Research excellence and patented innovation[J]. Science and Public Policy, 2000, 27(5): 310-320.
56 Liu X, Yi B, Li M, et al. Is interdisciplinary collaboration research more disruptive than monodisciplinary research?[J]. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2021, 58(1): 264-272.
57 Nguyen T V, Ho-Le T P, Le U V. International collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam: an analysis of patterns and impact[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 110(2): 1035-1051.
58 Guerrero Bote V P, Olmeda-Gómez C, de Moya-Anegón F. Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(2): 392-404.
59 张雪, 张志强. 专利知识吸收和扩散演化规律及影响研究[J]. 科研管理, 2022, 43(6): 160-169. |
|
|
|
