Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although Derwent Biotechnology Abstractshas been used in a variety of bibliometric studies, it has never undergone a systematic examination of its reliability and validity. The objective of this paper is to assess its quality for bibliometric studies attempting to analyse the evolution of biotechnology research, to map leading organizations, and to study the interaction between science and technology. The first part reviews the tools used in bibliometric studies of biotechnology and describes the Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts database. The second part is a case study of plant genetic research, with special emphasis on Canada.

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

References

  • Audretsch, D. B., Stephan, P. E. (1996), Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology, The American Economic Review, 30: 641–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P, Gupta, B. M., Garg, K. C. (2000), Patent statistics as indicators of competition-an analysis of patenting in biotechnology, Scientometrics, 47: 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biotechnology Industry Organization (2001), Biotechnology Industry Organization. [http://www.bio.org/aboutbio/guide2001/letter.pdf]

  • Carpenter, M. P., Narin, F. (1981), The adequacy of the Science Citation Index (SCI) as an indicator of international scientific activity, Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 32: 430–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K. (2002), Cracking the Genome–Inside the Race to Unlock Human DNA, New York, Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decarolis, D. M., Deeds, D. L. (1999), The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal, 20: 953–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., Ramani, S. V. (1999), Biotechnology patent applications in Europe-A look at the difference between French, British, and German patent application trends, Nature Biotechnology, 17: 83–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A. (1994), The application of scientometric tools to the analysis of a sector in plant biotechnologies: nitrogen fixation, Scientometrics, 30: 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., LemariÉ, J. (1997), Corpus relevance through co-word analysis: an application to plant proteins, Scientometrics, 39: 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLooze, M. A., Coronini, R., Joly, P. B. (2001), A note on recent trends in knowledge creation and appropriation through genomics: a scientometric analysis, International Journal of Biotechnology, 3: 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derwent (2000), Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts–An Introduction to Derwent Biotechnology Abstracts, Edition 4. [http://www.derwent.com/data/Bio_int.pdf]

  • Deutsche Bank (2000), AgBiotech: Thanks, But No Thanks.

  • El Feki, Shereen (2000), Growing pains, The Economist, March 23rd.

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Mcbride, W. D. (2000), Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture: Farm-level Effects, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report, No. 786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1972), The design and production of a citation index, In Citation Indexing–Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities, New York, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • GeneWatch (2000), Genetic Engineering: A Review of Developments in 2000, GeneWatch Briefing no. 13.

  • Giesecke, S. (2000), The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany, Research Policy, 29: 205–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990), Patent statistics as economic indicators, Journal of Economic Literature, 28: 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S. (1995), The Human Genome Project, In: Jasanoff, S. et al. (Eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, Sage, pp. 302–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinze, S., Grupp, H. (1996), Mapping of R&D structures in transdisciplinary areas: new biotechnology in food sciences, Scientometrics, 37: 313–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISI (2001), Scopes notes, Science Citation Index. [http://sunweb.isinet.com/isi/journals/scope/scie/index.html#DB]

  • James, C. (2000), Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2000, ISAAA Briefs No. 21, Ithaca (NY), ISAAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P. B., DeLooze, M.-A. (1999), Copropriété de brevets et coopération en R&D: une analyse dans les biotechnologies, Economie appliquée, 52: 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzandonakes, N.G. (2000), Agrobiotechnology and competitveness, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,82: 1224–1233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalaitzandonakes, N., Hayenga, M. (2000), Structural change in the biotechnology and seed industrial complex: theory and evidence, In: W. H. Lesser (Ed.), Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy. [http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=1907]

  • Kenney, M. (1986), Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex, New Haven, Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesan, J. P. (2000), Intellectual property protection and agricultural biotechnology, American Behavioral Scientist, 44: 464–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., Lerner, J. (1999), What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28: 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewison, G. (1994), Publications from the European community's biotechnology action programme (BAP): multinationality, acknowledgement of support, and citations, Scientometrics, 31: 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G. (1998), The self-organization of the European information society: the case of biotechnology, communication at the 4S Conference, Halifax.

  • Martens, B., Saretzki, T. (1994), Quantitative-Analysis of thematic structures in the field of biotechnology–A study on the basis of conference data, Scientometrics, 30: 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1995a), The structure of biotechnology R&D, Scientometrics, 32: 153–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. W. (1995b), Biotechnology in context: A database-filtering approach to identifying core and productive non-core journals supporting multidisciplinary R&D, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46: 306–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, D. (1999), Moving agbiotech downstream, Nature Biotechnology, 17: 1071–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., Narin, F., Deeds, D. L. (2000), An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology, Research Policy, 29: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000), Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature, Research Policy, 20: 409–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., Ziedonis, A. A. (2001), The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980, Research Policy, 30: 99–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F. (1994), Patents bibliometrics, Scientometrics, 30: 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., Olivastro, P. (1997), The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science, Research Policy, 26: 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1988), Changes in publication patterns of biotechnologists: An evaluation of the impact of government stimulation programs in six industrial nations, Scientometrics, 14: 475–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, L. O. (1987), Applied versus basic science in the literature of plant biology: a bibliometric perspective, Scientometrics, 12: 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (2000), Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants, Genetically Modified Pest Protected Plants–Science and Regulation, Washington, National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okubo, Y. (1997), Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems–Methods and examples, Paris, OECD, STI Working Paper 1997/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, C. (1982), The past, present and future of the patents services of Derwent Publications Ltd., Science and Technology Libraries, 2: 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administration Science Quarterly, 41: 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, S. V., DeLooze, M. A. (2000), A note on using patent statistics to obtain competition indicators, Scientometrics, 49: 511–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Courtial, J.-P. (1984), Co-word maps of biotechnology: an example of cognitive scientometrics, Scientometrics, 6: 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Nederhof, A. J. (1986), Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands, Research Policy, 15: 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senker, J., Van Vliet, R. (1998), Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, R. (Ed.) (2001), Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Information Bulletin, No. 762.

  • Singer, P. A., Daar, A. S. (2001), Harnessing genomics and biotechnology to improve global health equity, Science, 294: 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H., Saxena, S. K. (1992), Application of biotechnology in mass health care–literature trend, Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 39: 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. E. (1996), Pasteur's Quadrant–Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, G. M. P., Prevezer, M., Stout, D. (Eds) (1998), The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering, New York, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. M. (1992), The evaluation of plant biomass research: a case study of the problems inherent in bibliometric indicators, Scientometrics, 23: 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2001), Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows, Research Policy, 30: 35–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinkler, P. (1994), The origin and features of information references in pharmaceutical patents, Scientometrics, 30: 283–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, O. (1998), Biocatalysis: State of the Art in Europe, EUR 18680 EN.

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B. (1994), Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper No. 4653.

  • Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., Brewer, M. B. (1998), Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises, The American Economic Review, 88: 290–306.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and CIRST, University of Montreal, P. O. Box 6128, Station Downtown Montréal, H3C 3J7, Canada

    Robert Dalpé

Authors
  1. Robert Dalpé
    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

Dalpé, R. Bibliometric analysis of biotechnology. Scientometrics 55, 189–213 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019663607103

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019663607103

Keywords

Search

Navigation