Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The emergence of pattent bibliometrics as a new branch of scientometrics necessitates a deeper understanding of the relationship between patents and papers. As this connection is established through the linkage between patents and research papers, one must have a clear idea of similarities and differences between patent and paper citations. This paper will investigate to what extent one can not only apply bibliometric methods to patents but also extend the existing interpretative framework for citations in research papers to the field of patent citations. After pointing out some parallels in the debates about the nature of citations in patents and scientific articles, the paper outlines those parts of bibliometric theory covering scientific citations that could be relevant to patent citations too. Then it highlights the specialties and peculiarities of patent citations. One major conclusion is that the general nature of a common framework for both scientific and patent citations would severely limit its usefulness, but research on academic citations might still be a great source of inspiration to the study of patent citations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and References

  1. B. Cronin, The citation process: the role and significance of citations in scientific communication. Taylor Graham, London, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. Cronin, op.cit., 25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. T. Becher, Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Milton Keynes, OUP, 1989. Cited in B. CRONIN, Metatheorizing citation. Scientometrics, 43 (1998) 45–44.

    Google Scholar 

  4. V. Rabeharisoa, A special mediation between science and technology: when inventors publish scientific articles in fuel cells research. In: H. Grupp (Ed.), Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation. Berlin et al., 1992, Springer, p. 45-72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. In this context, Cronin refers to GILBERT, Referencing as a persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977), 113-122. See B. CRONIN, op.cit., 28.

  6. See, for instance, P. Collins and S. Wyatt, Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17 (1988), 65-74, or more recently, M. Meyer, Patents citing scientific literature: is the relationship causal or casual? IPTS Report, issue October 1998. See also M. MEYER, Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature, Research Policy, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. D. Walker, Patents as Scientific and Technical Literature. The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, and London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Cronin, op.cit., 30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. E. Garfield, The relationship between citing and cited publications: A question of relatedness. Originally published in the Current Contents print editions April 15, 1994.

  10. Ibid., 31.

  11. M.H. and B.R. MacRoberts, Problems of citation analysis: a critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40 (1989) 342-349.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M.H. and B.R. MacRoberts, op.cit., 343.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M.H. and B.R. MacRoberts, op.cit., 344.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  17. F. Narin, Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 30 (1994) 147-155.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R.N. Kostoff, The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43 (1998) 27-43.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Kostoff, op.cit., 27.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See B. Cronin, op.cit., 28. See also D.E. CHUBIN and S.D. MOITRA, Content analysis of references: adjunct or alternative to citation counting? Social Studies of Science, 5 (1975), 423–441.

    Google Scholar 

  22. F.K. Carr, Patents Handbook: A Guide for Inventors and Researchers to Searching Patent Documents and Preparing and Making an Application. McFarland & Co., Jefferson, NC, and London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P. Ganguli, M.J.R. Blackman, Patent Documents: A Multi-Edge Tool. World Patent Information, 17 (1995) 245-256.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Walker gives a detailed overview of what is contained on the front page in a standard format: bibliographic information, examination-process information, an abstract of the invention, and a drawing (when applicable), the title, the name of the inventor or inventors, the date of application, the application number, a record of previous applications from which the application stemmed (where appropriate), the classification number with any applicable cross-reference classification numbers. See R. D. Walker, Patents as Scientific and Technical Literature. The Scarecrow Press: Metuchen, NJ, and London, 1995, 135.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Derwent, Global Patent Sources: An Overview of International Patents. Edition 2, February 1999, Derwent Information, London, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Derwent, op.cit., 44.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Derwent, op.cit., 35.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Derwent, op.cit., 44.

    Google Scholar 

  30. However, this is in the same order of relative magnitude as the results of a study by Narin, Rosen and Olivastro, which indicates that only 20–50% of all references in the full text are also listed on the front page. For details, see F. Narin, M. Rosen and D. Olivastro, Patent citation analysis: new validation studies and linkage statistics. In: A. Van Raan et al. (Eds), Science and Technology Indicators: Their Use in Science Policy and Their Role in Science Studies. Leiden: DSWO Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  31. G. Jordan, personal communication.

  32. R.D. Walker, op.cit., 138.

    Google Scholar 

  33. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  34. R.D. Walker, op.cit., 139.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Table based on text in Walker, op.cit., 142.

    Google Scholar 

  36. H. Van Den Belt, Action at a distance: A.W. Hofmann and the French patent disputes (1860–1863), or how a scientist may influence legal decisions without appearing in court. In: R. Smith and B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  37. H. Van Den Belt, B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989 op.cit., 185.

    Google Scholar 

  38. B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989 185 Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See B. Campbell, Generalists, practitioners, and intellectuals: the credibility of experts in English patent law. In: R. Smith and B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989, 210-236. Campbell describes the variety of uses patents have and their effect on patenting: (1) Some parties hold many small patents to cover their production. (2) Other economic actors focus on key central patents. (3) Others prefer not to patent but rather to manage their affairs by means of industrial secrecy. (4) Patents are also taken out as part of employee incentive programs to promote inventiveness, resulting in a large number of not necessarily workable minor parts. See B. Campbell, op.cit., 211f.

    Google Scholar 

  40. G. Jordan, personal communication.

  41. A. Rip, Mobilising resources through texts. In: M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Macmillan, London, 1986, 84-99.

    Google Scholar 

  42. P. Collins, S. Wyatt, Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17 (1988), 65-74.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Collins, Wyatt, op.cit., 66.

    Google Scholar 

  44. WYATT, Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17 (1988), 66 Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J.B. Fordis, L.M. Sung, How to avoid patent rejection. Bio/Technology, 13 (January 1995), 42-43.

  46. N. Reingold, US Patent Office records as sources for the history of invention and technological property. Technology and Culture, 1 (1960), 160. Cited after Walker, op.cit.

    Google Scholar 

  47. U. Schmoch, Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26 (1993) 193-211.

    Google Scholar 

  48. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  49. Schmoch, op.cit.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  51. R. BarrĖ, Results of a statistical study of the references cited in the search reports established by the EPO (January 1981). World Patent Information, 3 (1981) 56-60. See also SCHMOCH, op.cit.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schmoch, op.cit.

    Google Scholar 

  53. However, Schmoch can present some evidence for a more general relationship. He cites an intellectual evaluation study of patent references that has shown for the field of space technology that a large number of references are linked to the citing patents in a very broad sense. See U. Schmoch, N. Kirsch, W. Lay, E. Plescher, K.-O. Jung, Analysis of technical spin-off effects of space-related R & D by means of patent indicators. Acta Astronautica, 24 (1991) 353-362.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rip distinguishes three different kinds of readers: (1) the officials of the Patent Office, who have to grant the patent; (2) the competitors in the field, who are eager for information about new products and processes; and (3) potential licensees, who must be interested in what the patent offers. See A. Rip, Mobilising resources through texts. In: M. Callon, J. Law, A. Rip (Eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Macmillan: London, 1986, 91f.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  57. B. Campbell, B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989 op.cit., 212.

    Google Scholar 

  58. This statement is well underlined by the difficulties Campbell experienced when he tried to get cooperation from corporations involved in patent actions. In particular, their objections included the concern in jeopardizing their legal position in relation to the patent in question. See B. Campbell, B. Wynne (Eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge: London, 1989 op.cit., 234.

    Google Scholar 

  59. A. Rip, J. LAW, A. RIP (Eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Macmillan, London, 1986 op.cit., p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  60. For the field of biotechnology, Cambrosio, Keating and MacKenzie illustrate the strategic character of patents and, furthermore, show that “while one might expect ‘technical’ arguments to play a central role... 'social', ‘historical’ ‘economic’, or ‘philosophical’ arguments are coextensive with and constitutive of the ‘technical’.” See A. Cambrosio, P. Keating, M. MacKenzie, Scientific practice in the courtroom: the construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute. Social Problems, 37 (1990) 275-293.

    Google Scholar 

  61. G. Jordan, personal communication.

  62. K. GrÖnlund, G. Jordan, L. Karlsson, H.H. Zitt, personal communications.

  63. R. Bertram, H.H. Zitt, personal communications.

  64. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  65. L. Karlsson, personal communication.

  66. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  67. L. Karlsson, H.H. Zitt, personal communications.

  68. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  69. K. GrÖnlund, personal communication.

  70. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  71. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  72. L. Karlsson, personal communication.

  73. P. Auger, (Ed.), Information Sources in Patents. Bowker-Saur: London et al., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  74. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  75. G. Jordan, personal communication.

  76. G. Jordan, personal communication.

  77. L. Karlsson, personal communication.

  78. R. Bertram, personal communication.

  79. P. Collins, S. Wyatt, op.cit., 67.

    Google Scholar 

  80. D. Harhoff et al., op.cit., 1999, 514.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Strategy and International Business, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

    Martin Meyer

  2. SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, England

    Martin Meyer

  3. TECHNOPOLIS Ltd, Brighton, England

    Martin Meyer

Authors
  1. Martin Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M. What is Special about Patent Citations? Differences between Scientific and Patent Citations. Scientometrics 49, 93–123 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005613325648

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005613325648

Keywords

Search

Navigation