Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research
arXiv:1804.04105 · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.010
Abstract
Traditionally, the number of citations that a scholarly paper receives from other papers is used as the proxy of its scientific impact. Yet citations can come from domains outside the scientific community, and one such example is through patented technologies---paper can be cited by patents, achieving technological impact. While the scientific impact of papers has been extensively studied, the technological aspect remains less known in the literature. Here we aim to fill this gap by presenting a comparative study on how 919 thousand biomedical papers are cited by U.S. patents and by other papers over time. We observe a positive correlation between citations from patents and from papers, but there is little overlap between the two domains in either the most cited papers, or papers with the most delayed recognition. We also find that the two types of citations exhibit distinct temporal variations, with patent citations lagging behind paper citations for a median of 6 years for the majority of papers. Our work contributes to the understanding of the technological impact of papers.
References in corpus (9)
- An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
- Power-law distributions in empirical data
- Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure
- Powerlaw: a Python package for analysis of heavy-tailed distributions
- Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact
- Mapping change in large networks
- Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science
- Collective credit allocation in science
- Statistical Modelling of Citation Exchange Between Statistics Journals
Cited by in corpus (4)
- Technological impact of biomedical research: the role of basicness and novelty
- An analysis of the evolution of science-technology linkage in biomedicine
- Relying on recent and temporally dispersed science predicts breakthrough inventions
- Paper-Patent Citation Linkages as Early Signs for Predicting Delayed Recognized Knowledge: Macro and Micro Evidence