4.5 Article

Exploring the forward citation patterns of patents based on the evolution of technology fields

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.100985

关键词

Forward citation patterns of patents; Dynamic field effects; Technology diffusion; Technology value; Evolutionary perspective

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2016R1A2A1A05005270]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2A1A05005270] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forward citations of patents have been used extensively to capture the impact of technological knowledge. However, our understanding of the factors shaping patent citation patterns remains limited. One of the main limitations is the lack of scholarly attention paid to the dynamic influences arising from the evolution of technology fields. From an evolutionary perspective, technological impact is not simply determined by the static attributes of a technology itself; it is also dynamically affected by changes in the external conditions. Drawing on this viewpoint, this study suggests a model for understanding patent citation patterns by reflecting the evolution of the technology fields to which each patent belongs. Four such factors are explored: technology cycle time, potential of technological convergence, popularity of the technology field, and technological novelty. Based on the proposed model, we show how expected citation patterns can change as a result of different scenarios for technology field evolution. We conduct a case study of patents in the information technology and healthcare industries to show citation patterns of patents across heterogeneous industries as well as those within an industry. Contributions to the innovation literature and research investment decisions are discussed. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据