Measuring the Interdisciplinarity of Nano-Biosensor
Research based on Citation Analysis
Lidan Gao1, Alan L Porter2, Tingting Ma3, Wenping Wang3, Stephen Carley2, Xian
Zhang1
gld@clas.ac.cn, alan.porter@isye.gatech.edu, matingtingmay@163.com, wangwenping1009@gmail.com,
stephen.carley@gmail.com, zhangx@clas.ac.cn
1 Chengdu Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China
2 School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345, USA
3 School of Management and Economic, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
1. Introduction
The relationship between science and technology has been subject to some debate for
many years. One of the most widely used bibliometric methods of measuring the linkage
between science and technology is to apply citation analysis. This method concerns itself
with two categories of assessment: literature citation and patent citation analysis.
The most widely known citation analysis literature resource is Web of Science, which
began indexing print publications in 1961. In recent decades, numerous studies that
analyzed patent citing behaviors 1 , 2 , 3 have found that literature and patent references
within patent documents offer a way to identify and compare contributions of scientific
and technical knowledge to technological development.
Although citation analysis has been studied for several decades, prior research mainly
focused on the knowledge flow among countries, R&D institutes, and firms. 4 Several
studies assessed the relationship between science and technology by using non-patent
citation data in US patent5,6,7.
This research introduces a methodology that combines analysis of cited literature and
cited patents to explore differences and similarities between nano-biosensor (NBS)
science and technology. The analysis of cited literature aims to determine which
disciplines (subject categories) are closely related to NBS science, while the analysis of
cited patents aims to establish which sub-fields within technology (IPCs– International
Patent Classes) and science (subject categories) are closely related to NBS technology.
The output of the combined analyses will be shown to NBS experts to clarify the
relationship among patents, literature, and their respective citations.
The research objectives of this paper are as follows:
 to measure the integration score of NBS8
 to indentify how interdisciplinary NBS is in both science and technology
 to explore similarities and differences between NBS SCI and NBS TECH research
efforts
 to indentify which subject categories mostly influence the development of NBS
technology, and also which technologies mostly influence the development of
NBS technology
 to clarify the relationship among patents, literatures, and their respective citations
2. Methodology
Watts and Porter studied the different emphases of various databases. They
consequently proposed that the Science Citation Index (SCI) represents fundamental
research; patents, such as U.S. patents, represent technology development.9 In this paper,
we will follow these descriptions. The databases used in this study are the SCI and
Derwent World Patents Index (DWPI). So three types of references are analyzed in this
paper: literature to literature, patent to literature, and patent to patent. Herein, in terms of
references from patent to literature, only literature that is indexed in the SCI is selected
for analysis.
We refine our NBS search strategy based on former studies.10
Literature to literature analysis
The purpose of this step is to measure science interdisciplinarity of NBS. This is done
in three sub-steps:
(1) Measuring the integration score of NBS
(2) Determining how many disciplines（subject categories） are involved in NBScited literature
(3) Determining how the disciplines change (by time slice)
Patent to literature analysis
The purpose of this step is to measure the following:
(1) Establishing how many disciplines (subject categories) are involved in NBS
technology cited literature
(2) Determining how the disciplines change (by time slice)
Patent to patent analysis
This analysis is to explore the technology interdisciplinarity of NBS. It includes the
following sections:
(1) The most important classifications (IPC) of the cited patents, according to the first
IPC
(2) How the classifications change (by time slice)
3. Conclusion
In conclusion, we will compare the differences and similarities between NBS science
and technology and ascertain which disciplines (subject categories) are closely related to
NBS science and technology, and which branches of technology (IPCs) are closely
related to NBS technology.
1
Philip Ellis, G Hepburn, Charles Oppenheim. Studies on patent citation networks. Journal of Documentation, 1978,
34(1): 12–20
2 Martin S Meyer. Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 2001, 51(1): 163–183
3 Martin S Meyer. What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations.
Scientometrics, 2000, 49(1): 93–123
4 Yong-Gil Lee, Jeong-Dong Lee, Yong-Il Song, Se-Jun Lee. An in-depth empirical analysis of patent citation counts
using zero-inflated count data model: the case of KIST. Scientometrics, 2007,70(1):27–39
5 Narin F, K S Hamilton, D Olivastro. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research
Policy, 1997, 26:317-330
6 Martin S Meyer. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 2000, 29:409–
434
7 Tijssen R J W. global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of sciencetechnology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 2001, 30:35–54
8 Alan L Porter, J David Roessner, Anne E Heberger. How interdisciplinary is a given body of research? Research
Evaluation, 2008,17(4):273–283
9 Robert J Watts, Alan L Porter. Innovation Forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 1997, 56:25–
47
10 Alan L Porter, Jan Youtie, Philip Shapira, David J Schoeneck. Refining Search Terms for Nanotechnology. J
Nanopart Res. 2008, 10:715–728