A comparative analysis of Inventor Patent Classification Coupling between the first-inventor and all-inventor: Taking 3D printing as an example

Abstract

This article takes 43,753 patents collected in the Derwent database from 2011 to 2020 as data samples and studies the intellectual structure and evolution of the three-dimensional (3D) printing field in two time periods of 2011–2015 and 2016–2020. We compare the performance of the first-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis and all-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis in detecting the intellectual structure of the technical domain. We obtain the following findings: (1) Both methods, the first-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis and the all-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis, can show the intellectual structure of the 3D printing field. However, the first-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis outperforms all-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis in the detection of basic research; while all-inventor patent classification codes coupling analysis is more sensitive in emerging and interdisciplinary topics. (2) Three-dimensional printing has been evolving in the last decade. While the field has retained the research themes of the previous phase in the last 5 years, several new research themes have also emerged. The most prominent feature of this field is the development and integration of the previous phase’s topics. (3) The research direction of the top 20 inventors in the average coupling frequency ranking is consistent. A small number of researchers continue to work on their previous research, while most inventors move to popular technical topics or combine multiple topics at the same time.

Keywords

Derwent classification codes 3D printing patent analysis patent classification-coupling analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kessler

. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am Doc 1963; 14(1): 10–25.

Small

Koenig

MED

. Journal clustering using a bibliographic coupling method. Inform Process Manag 1977; 13(5): 277–288.

Zhang

Liu

. The study of subject-classification based on journal coupling and expert subject-classification system. Scientometrics 2016; 107(3): 1149–1170.

Zhao

Strotmann

. The knowledge base and research front of information science 2006–2010: an author cocitation and bibliographic coupling analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech 2014; 65(5): 995–1006.

Yang

Han

Wolfram

et al. Visualizing the intellectual structure of information science (2006–2015): introducing author keyword coupling analysis. J Informetr 2016; 10(1): 132–150.

Chang

Y-W

Huang

M-H

Lin

C-W

. Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics 2015; 105(3): 2071–2087.

Ferreira

FAF

. Mapping the field of arts-based management: bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses. J Bus Res 2018; 85: 348–357.

Hsiao

T-M

Chen

K-h

. The dynamics of research subfields for library and information science: an investigation based on word bibliographic coupling. Scientometrics 2020; 125(1): 717–737.

Jiang

Shi

et al. Measuring the social influences of scientist groups based on multiple types of collaboration relations. Inform Process Manag 2017; 53(1): 1–20.

10.

Park

Jeong

Yoon

et al. Exploring potential R&D collaboration partners through patent analysis based on bibliographic coupling and latent semantic analysis. Technol Anal Strateg 2014; 27(7): 759–781.

11.

Wang

Hsu

C-C

. A topic-based patent analytics approach for exploring technological trends in smart manufacturing. J Manuf Tech Manag 2020; 32(1): 110–135.

12.

Liu

Nanetti

Cheong

. Knowledge evolution in physics research: an analysis of bibliographic coupling networks. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(9): e0184821.

13.

Noh

Lee

. Keyword selection and processing strategy for applying text mining to patent analysis. Expert Syst Appl 2015; 42(9): 4348–4360.

14.

Bonino

Ciaramella

Corno

. Review of the state-of-the-art in patent information and forthcoming evolutions in intelligent patent informatics. World Patent Inform 2010; 32(1): 30–38.

15.

Zhao

Strotmann

. Comparing all-author and first-author co-citation analyses of information science. J Informetr 2008; 2(3): 229–239.

16.

Shen

Zhang

. Comparing fist-author and all-author bibliographic-coupling analysis for the study of intellectual structure of research field: an empirical analysis of the research field of Silicon Nanomaterial. J Intell 2014; 33(4): 22–28.

17.

Boyack

Klavans

. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2010; 61(12): 2389–2404.

18.

Huang

M-H

Chang

C-P

. A comparative study on detecting research fronts in the organic light-emitting diode (OLED) field using bibliographic coupling and co-citation. Scientometrics 2014; 102(3): 2041–2057.

19.

Kuan

C-H

Chen

D-Z

Huang

M-H

. Bibliographically coupled patents: their temporal pattern and combined relevance. J Informetr 2019; 13(4): 100978.

20.

Zhao

Strotmann

. Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2008; 59(13): 2070–2086.

21.

Song

. A comparative study on author bibliographic-coupling analysis and author keyword-coupling analysis based on Scientometrics. J Lib Sci China 2014; 40(1): 25–34.

22.

Narin

. Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 1994; 30(1): 147–155.

23.

Meyer

. Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics 2001; 51(1): 163–183.

24.

Tussen

RJW

Buter

van Leeuwen

. Technological relevance of science: an assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics 2000; 47(2): 389–412.

25.

Rodriguez

Kim

Turkoz

et al. New multi-stage similarity measure for calculation of pairwise patent similarity in a patent citation network. Scientometrics 2015; 103(2): 565–581.

26.

Barirani

Agard

Beaudry

. Discovering and assessing fields of expertise in nanomedicine: a patent co-citation network perspective. Scientometrics 2013; 94(3): 1111–1136.

27.

Huang

M-H

Chiang

L-Y

Chen

D-Z

. Constructing a patent citation map using bibliographic coupling: a study of Taiwan’s high-tech companies. Scientometrics 2003; 58(3): 489–506.

28.

S-C

. Patent coupling analysis of primary organizations in genetic engineering research. Scientometrics 2007; 74(1): 143–151.

29.

Wen

. Study on the potential collaboration relationship based on the assignee classified code coupling analysis. J China Soc Sci Tech Inform 2016; 35(12): 1265–1272.

30.

Wen

. Research on the technology diversity and similarity based on the coupling of Derwent patent classification codes. Inform Stud: Theory Appl 2017; 40(8): 87–92.

31.

Leydesdorff

. On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton’s Cosine versus the Jaccard index. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2008; 58(1): 77–85.

32.

Wolfram

. Measuring author research relatedness: a comparison of word-based, topic-based, and author cocitation approaches. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2012; 63(10): 1973–1986.

33.

Qiu

J-P

Dong

H-Q

. Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics. Scientometrics 2014; 101(2): 1345–1360.

34.

Huang

Zhu

Qian

et al. A hybrid method to trace technology evolution pathways: a case study of 3D printing. Scientometrics 2017; 111(1): 185–204.

35.

Wang

Jiang

Zhang

. Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: a case study of 3D printing technologies. Technol Forecast Soc 2020; 161: 120251.

36.

White

McCain

. Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science 1972–1995. J Am Soc Inform Sci 1998; 49(4): 327–355.

37.

Zhao

Strotmann

. Information science during the first decade of the web: an enriched author cocitation analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2008; 59(6): 916–937.

38.

White

. Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. J Am Soc Inf Sci Tec 2003; 54(13): 1250–1259.

39.

Ngo

Kashani

Imbalzano

et al. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B: Eng 2018; 143: 172–196.

40.

Ligon

Liska

Stampfl

et al. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem Rev 2017; 117(15): 10212–10290.

41.

Muzi

O’Sullivan

Mankoff

et al. Quantitative assessment of dynamic PET imaging data in cancer imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30(9): 1203–1215.

42.

Goole

Amighi

. 3D printing in pharmaceutics: a new tool for designing customized drug delivery systems. Int J Pharm 2016; 499(1–2): 376–394.