颠覆性专利是否长期减少?纠正测量偏差

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Research Policy Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992
Jeffrey T. Macher , Christian Rutzer , Rolf Weder
{"title":"颠覆性专利是否长期减少?纠正测量偏差","authors":"Jeffrey T. Macher ,&nbsp;Christian Rutzer ,&nbsp;Rolf Weder","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite tremendous growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, the popular press has recently raised concerns that disruptive innovation is slowing. These dire prognoses were driven in part by Park et al. (2023), a <em>Nature</em> publication that uses decades of data and millions of observations coupled with a novel quantitative metric (the CD index) that characterizes innovation in science and technology as either consolidating or disruptive. We challenge the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings, principally around concerns of truncation bias and exclusion bias. We show that 88 percent of the decrease in the average CD index over 1980–2010 reported by the authors can be explained by their truncation of all backward patent citations before 1976. We also show that this truncation bias varies by technology class. We further account for a change in U.S. patent law that allows for citations to patent applications in addition to patent grants—something ignored by the authors in their analysis—and update the analysis to 2016. We show that the number of highly disruptive patents has increased since 1980—particularly since 2008. Our results suggest caution in using the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings and conclusions as a basis for research and decision-making in public policy, industry restructuring or firm reorganization aimed at altering the current innovation landscape.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey T. Macher ,&nbsp;Christian Rutzer ,&nbsp;Rolf Weder\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite tremendous growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, the popular press has recently raised concerns that disruptive innovation is slowing. These dire prognoses were driven in part by Park et al. (2023), a <em>Nature</em> publication that uses decades of data and millions of observations coupled with a novel quantitative metric (the CD index) that characterizes innovation in science and technology as either consolidating or disruptive. We challenge the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings, principally around concerns of truncation bias and exclusion bias. We show that 88 percent of the decrease in the average CD index over 1980–2010 reported by the authors can be explained by their truncation of all backward patent citations before 1976. We also show that this truncation bias varies by technology class. We further account for a change in U.S. patent law that allows for citations to patent applications in addition to patent grants—something ignored by the authors in their analysis—and update the analysis to 2016. We show that the number of highly disruptive patents has increased since 1980—particularly since 2008. Our results suggest caution in using the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings and conclusions as a basis for research and decision-making in public policy, industry restructuring or firm reorganization aimed at altering the current innovation landscape.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000416\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324000416","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管新科技知识的数量有了巨大增长,但大众媒体最近却提出了颠覆性创新正在放缓的担忧。Park等人(2023年)发表的《自然》(Nature)刊物利用数十年的数据和数以百万计的观察结果,结合新颖的定量指标(CD指数),将科技创新定性为巩固性创新或颠覆性创新,从而在一定程度上推动了这些可怕的预言。我们对(Park 等人,2023 年)的专利发现提出质疑,主要是担心截断偏差和排除偏差。我们表明,作者报告的 1980-2010 年平均 CD 指数下降的 88% 可以用他们对 1976 年之前所有后向专利引用的截断来解释。我们还表明,这种截断偏差因技术类别而异。我们进一步解释了美国专利法的变化,该变化允许在专利授权之外引用专利申请--作者在分析中忽略了这一点--并将分析更新至 2016 年。我们发现,自 1980 年以来,特别是自 2008 年以来,高度颠覆性专利的数量有所增加。我们的研究结果表明,谨慎使用(Park 等,2023 年)的专利发现和结论作为公共政策研究和决策、行业重组或企业重组的基础,以改变当前的创新格局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias

Despite tremendous growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, the popular press has recently raised concerns that disruptive innovation is slowing. These dire prognoses were driven in part by Park et al. (2023), a Nature publication that uses decades of data and millions of observations coupled with a novel quantitative metric (the CD index) that characterizes innovation in science and technology as either consolidating or disruptive. We challenge the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings, principally around concerns of truncation bias and exclusion bias. We show that 88 percent of the decrease in the average CD index over 1980–2010 reported by the authors can be explained by their truncation of all backward patent citations before 1976. We also show that this truncation bias varies by technology class. We further account for a change in U.S. patent law that allows for citations to patent applications in addition to patent grants—something ignored by the authors in their analysis—and update the analysis to 2016. We show that the number of highly disruptive patents has increased since 1980—particularly since 2008. Our results suggest caution in using the (Park et al., 2023) patent findings and conclusions as a basis for research and decision-making in public policy, industry restructuring or firm reorganization aimed at altering the current innovation landscape.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
期刊最新文献
Transformation of the governance of failure for radical innovation: The role of strategic leaders How media portrayal of CEO overconfidence impacts radical innovation The determinants of parallel invention: Measuring the role of information sharing and personal interaction between inventors Do the elite university projects promote scientific research competitiveness: Evidence from NSFC grants The bidirectional causality of tie stability and innovation performance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1