Abstract – This paper presents an approach to bibliometric analysis in the context of technology mining. Bibliometric analysis refers to the use of publication database statistics, e.g., hit counts relevant to a topic of interest. Technology mining facilitates the identification of a technology’s research landscape. Our contribution to bibliometrics in this context is the use of a technique known as Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) to reveal the concepts that underlie the terms relevant to a field. Using this technique, we can analyze coherent concepts, rather than individual terms. This can lead to more useful results from our bibliometric analysis. We present results that demonstrate the ability of Latent Semantic Analysis to uncover the concepts underlying sets of key terms, used in a case study on the technologies of renewable energy. 1 Introduction 1.1 Technology mining The planning and management of research and development activities is a challenging task that is further compounded by the large amounts of information available to researchers and decision-makers. One difficult problem is the need to gain a broad understanding of the current state of research, future scenarios and the identification of technologies with potential for growth and which hence need to be emphasized. Information regarding past and current research is available from a wide variety of channels (examples of which include publication and patent databases); the task of extracting useable information from these sources, known as “tech-mining” [Porter, 2005], presents both a difficult challenge and a rich source of possibilities; on the one hand, sifting through these databases is time consuming and subjective, while on the other, they provide a rich source of data with which a well-informed and comprehensive research strategy may be formed. There is already a significant body of research addressing this problem (for a good review, the reader is referred to [Porter, 2005, Porter, 2007, Losiewicz et al., 2000, Martino, 1993]); interesting examples include visualizing the inter-relationships between research topics [Porter, 2005, Small, 2006], identification of important researchers or research groups [Kostoff, 2001, Losiewicz et al., 2000], the study of research performance by country [de Miranda et al., 2006, Kim and Mee-Jean, 2007], the study of collaboration patterns [Anuradha et al., 2007, Chiu and Ho, 2007, Braun et al., 2000] and the prediction of future trends and developments [Smallheiser, 2001, Daim et al., 2005, Daim et al., 2006, Small, 2006]. Nevertheless, given the many difficulties inherent to these undertakings, there is still much scope for further development in many of these areas.
Read full abstract