World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Patent Information

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin

Beyond patent analytics: Insights from a scientific and technological data T

mashup based on a case example
Alessandro Comai
International University of Japan, Japan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although access to open and commercial digital sources is easily available thanks to the proliferation of the
Data mashup internet, R&D departments still face the challenge of how to analyze information from several sources. This
Network analysis paper addresses this issue specifically when technological and scientific information needs to be analyzed in an
Visual analytics integrated manner. 12,577 families of patents, 2601 scientific papers and 706 news articles are combined,
Patent analysis
normalized and analyzed using their own metadata and text. A software tool is used to extract insights from
Scientific paper analysis
News article analysis
semi-structured and unstructured data by means of text mining. Additionally, interactive force-directed graph
visualization is employed to show the multiple relations of concepts during different time periods with regard to
the entire technology ecosystem. Through a case study of 3D printing technology, this paper shows how to apply
mashup and obtain the benefits, and it defines the challenges of using interactive visualization representation.

1. Introduction
Intellectual property (IP) software has been around for quite some
time [1–3]. Nevertheless, these software tools are used by R&D analysts
and managers, as well as other professional bodies such as intellectual
property experts, technology transfer institutions and Universities, in
order to analyze the “state of the art” of a particular technology. Al-
though patents are utilized as a main source for measuring the level of
technology innovation [4], these do not represent the whole technology
ecosystem. Patent analysis can be enriched with other information
sources, such as scientific papers, technical reports and technology-or-
iented news. Furthermore, sources unrelated with science such as social
media can also play an important role in understanding how techno-
logical information is disseminated today and how web sources can
significantly enrich the analysis of technology [5].
Although inbound information flow is beneficial for the innovation
process [6], R&D managers have to face several key challenges with
respect to external knowledge acquisition: the sourcing and processing
of the sources. The great number and variety of sources makes it dif-
ficult to aggregate data in a normalized manner. Additionally, un-
structured information, such as technological reports and news, and
semi-structured information, such as patents, provide an additional
barrier for R&D managers when extracting and interpreting the data.
These issues become more relevant when the number of documents to
be analyzed increases significantly. In these circumstances, mashup
shows itself to be a promising solution in many fields.
To date, substantial efforts have been invested in this area of re-
search and several solutions have been proposed in recent years [7].
The shift towards multi-database-based analysis and networked re-
search has created a new opportunity in social science. However, many
challenges remain to be met. The review of patent analysis software
tools made by Abbas et al. [8] shows that text mining is a dominant tool
in contrast to visualization. Nevertheless, both techniques “generate
charts and insights that are hidden or not easy to identify by conven-
tional manual analysis” [3] which can be applied to answer specific
questions frequently raised by IP professionals [9].
To address these issues, we have organized the paper in four main
sections. The first section reviews the current literature in the different
domains. In the second section, we will present a methodology which
includes the process for capturing data and combining this into one data
source. We will outline how data is analyzed in the network graph. The
third section discusses the results and how to obtain insights from the
data and the visualization. The fourth and final section of the paper is
devoted to discussion and a conclusion.
2. Literature review
This literature review has six sections. Firstly, the most recent
techniques for extracting knowledge from structured to unstructured
datasets are described. Secondly, we explore the data aggregation
process also known as “mashup” applied to IP. Thirdly, we highlights
the role of bibliometric techniques not only developed in scientific

E-mail address: acomai@iuj.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.10.002
Received 27 February 2018; Received in revised form 12 October 2018; Accepted 14 October 2018
0172-2190/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Comai
literature but also in other data sources. Fourthly, a description of the
benefit of visualization is provided. Fifthly, some principles and appli-
cations of network theory in the technology field are discussed. Finally,
two research questions are presented: the first to addressing key ben-
efits of the mashup datasets and the second the visualization options.
2.1. Extraction methods and taxonomies
One of the main challenges analysts and researchers need to deal
with is how to extract insights and intelligence from unstructured data
quickly and conveniently. Extracting data refers to “the task of auto-
matically extracting structured information from unstructured/semi-
structured machine-readable documents” [10].
So far, many techniques have been proposed as potential solutions.
For example, statistical methods of analyzing metadata [5,11], text
mining [12–14], computational linguistics and natural language pro-
cessing [3,10,15,16], and semantic keyword extraction [17,18]. These
methods range from common statistical techniques to artificial in-
telligence, when advanced algorithms are used for analysis of the data
[8,19].
The vast majority of the techniques described above serve to extract
terms, keywords and metadata. In patents, for example, extracting
keywords from both the full text or patent claims [15] may be very
beneficial for creating taxonomies [10,20], as well as ontologies [21].
Open source tools, such as Wikipedia Miner, prove to be very useful in
extracting and comparing keywords from social media sources such as
Wikipedia, among others [22].
Specifically, taxonomies collate terms in groups in a hierarchical
tree for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of concepts re-
lated with a specific domain [23]. Both represent a conceptual re-
presentation of knowledge of a specific technology domain. However,
the section of the document to be used for extracting keywords is im-
portant, as this is dependent on the objective of the analysis [24]. In this
way, keywords and metadata can finally be used for displaying clusters
and graphing semantic networks [18,25].
2.2. Mashup
Combining technical and scientific datasets enriches the inter-
pretation of the information with additional detail. Abraham and
Moitra [26] stated that patent analysis is not limited to technology, but
patent statistics can show economic development. Moreover, according
to Nelson [27], utilizing multiple sources reduces potential biases in the
analysis of data retrieved from a single source.
When a technology is being studied using different sources, the
options are limited to two alternatives. On the one hand, the contents
are studied independently and separate conclusions are drawn. This is
perhaps the most common practice applied when studying two or more
topics [28–30]. On the other hand, the information is merged together.
This option is the most desirable and undoubtedly the most advanta-
geous – for example, reducing potentially biased results when using a
single source [27] – but it requires careful data processing.
The process of grouping and normalizing several datasets is known
as mashup (also mush-up). The term mashup is also often used to refer
to the blending of heterogeneous digital data [7]. Merging scientific
and technology domains from heterogeneous as well as homogenous
information sources may provide a number of positive outcomes. It
helps to discover or identify new information in real time [7] and keep
abreast of dynamic business [31], brokers, gatekeepers, coordinators
[32,33], linkages between university and industry technology [33] and
intermediaries [34], among others.
To accomplish the task of mashing up information, especially when
using non-patent literature (NPL), several processes are required. Abbas
et al. [8] suggested three main phases for processing the data: pre-
processing, processing and post-processing. Firstly, data needs to be
collected and transformed. Secondly, data needs to be structured.
62
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
Finally, information will be analyzed using a variety of visualization
techniques in the post-processing phase.
Although merging tech and social type information can reveal new
insights [31], there are still some constraints. According to Järvenpääa
et al. [35], comparing different sets of source-based data on specific
technologies reveals that different sources do not always play an im-
portant role in showing how a technology evolves over time.
2.3. Bibliometrics
A large body of research papers have used bibliometric techniques
for studying patents, scientific papers and articles [29,36], defined as
NPL [30,32,37]. Bibliometrics is defined as a “quantitative analysis of
academic publishing” [38]. On the other hand, White and McCain [39]
define bibliometrics as “the quantitative study of literature as they are
reflected in bibliographies. Its task, immodestly enough, is to provide
evolutionary models of science, technology, and scholarship.” Although
bibliometrics can also be applied to other domains, such as the web, for
example [38], this paper focuses primarily on technological data. Bib-
liometrics are used for measuring research outputs [40] or counting the
number of publications and the number of citations that the publica-
tions receive [41–43].
To do so, bibliometric studies tend to use software tools for pro-
ducing automated analyses of large corpora of data [18]. The number of
tools, as well as features, has increased significantly in the last decade
[1], but most of the current software is focused on extracting in-
formation from data or metadata using statistics-based visualization,
rather than text mining techniques [2]. Even if tools have started
adding functionalities capable of extracting meaning from text [2] or
graphing data using compelling visualization techniques, there is still
room for improvement.
2.4. Visualization
The large amount of text available through digital media has in-
creased the need for deciphering the contents and accelerating the data
interpretation process. According to Kochtchi et al. [16], “text visuali-
zation attempts to turn large text corpora into more accessible visual
representations”. Over the course of decades, visualizations have played
an important role in enabling decision-makers to quickly identify in-
formation of interest [44], facilitating the knowledge acquisition pro-
cess [45–47], digesting considerable amounts of data [48] and over-
coming information overload [49].
More recently, new visualization representation has been developed
and rapidly adopted to explore data quickly [50] or for data triangu-
lation [51]. Among visualization models, there are visualization tools
that have increased its value. Interactive visual data exploration allows
“the human to get insight into the data, draw conclusions, and directly
interact with the data” [52]. In order to achieve these benefits, the
process can be very structured and follows three main steps, namely
extracting, converting and generating visual representations [53].
2.5. Network graph
According to Newman [54], a network consists of “vertices” or
“nodes” connected by “edges”. It includes many properties, such as the
size of the edges, degree of nodes, number of discrete nodes or edges,
strength or weight of nodes or edges, node clustering, betweenness
centrality of nodes, edge direction, color of node or edge, and network
diameter [54]. Based on the principles of network and visualization
theory, network graphs are used for showing multiple connections be-
tween concepts, such as topics, keywords or metadata, or between key
stakeholders, such as institutions, firms, universities, inventors, owners
or people [3,16,42,55]. Nodes can also represent the relationship be-
tween documents themselves based on technology domains [56] or
semantic similarity [10,17,57].
A. Comai
Network graphs are built on several streams of literature:
Information visualization [58], Visual analytics [59], Interactive visual
analysis [60] and Visual network analysis [61]. Network theory has
been used in computer science, social sciences [62] and in sciento-
metrics for many purposes. For example, in order to show the number
of citations between documents [63]; to study a firm's connections, such
as mergers, acquisitions and strategic alliances [64]; and to study co-
inventions [3,65] or technology breakthroughs [25]. Finally, and in
perhaps the most popular context, online social networks or social
media [66] are likely to utilize network graphs to display an entire
ecosystem around a specific conversation [67].
According to Sternitzke et al. [42], the spread of social networks has
encouraged IP software to adopt new methods of analysis, which has
resulted in an increasing use of networks to visualize large amounts of
information [2,3,19,55,68]. Perhaps one of the reasons that network
graphs are so popular in science and technology fields is that they can
show many dimensions at once, rather than just two dimensions [42].
However, visual analytics of networks driven by data represents a novel
process for studying technology ecosystems [53].
2.6. Concluding remarks
Despite the value of the different research streams, a review of the
literature shows that there are still some limitations. Two points need to
be taken into consideration. Firstly, the integration of different datasets
has mainly been focused on social media and little has been carried out
in the technological field. New techniques for analyzing patents and
articles together are needed [8]. Secondly, although visualizations and
networks have been widely used in patent analysis software, ap-
proaches continue to focus on a single source of information rather than
aggregating a great variety of technically oriented sources. Thirdly,
when searching large volumes of data which result in large ecosystems
[25], there is a technological challenge with respect to visualizing all
the data. Fekete and Plaisant [50] addressed several visualization lim-
itations which are still valid when using web-based tools. Interactive
Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) or canvas-based visualization, which
are rendered in the user's personal computer, require good computa-
tional resources and time for the process. In contrast, some network
graphs1 use a pre-defined calculation of the position of the nodes in the
server to render the graph quickly, but the vast majority of them are
static.
Nevertheless, limited technical capability makes the analysis of a
large amount of data more challenging [69]. Finally, visualization of
networks needs to take into consideration the aesthetics of the node
allocation in the layout, which makes the graph easy or difficult to
interpret. In this context, Sugiyama et al. [70] suggested several rules to
improve the readability of a graph.
Based on these conclusions, in our opinion it is important to explore
how to integrate the data and show at least one solution that could be
considered feasible. Thus, two key questions are suggested as follows:
Q1. Does a mashup dataset provide a significant contribution en-
riching data analysis?
Q2. Which options can be adopted to meet the technological chal-
lenges of analyzing large volumes of data?
The following section explains how we approach the integration and
analysis of technology information.
3. Methodology
The goal of this paper is to present a case concerned with how to
visualize a technology ecosystem based on a combination of different
1 4
see: http://www.mapofscience.com/.
63
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
sources. We have combined Patents, Scientific Literature and
Technological News.
To do so, we used 3D printing technology as the main subject for the
research. We selected this key topic for the research, because a growing
number of publications have been devoted to 3D printing in recent
years [71]. Additionally, 3D printing is a fast growing technology with
a significant impact on business, according to Rayna and Striukova
[72]. The timeframe for this study, 2008–2017, was selected for several
reasons. Firstly, we wanted to make sure that significant data among
the data sources was retrieved. For patents, we used the priority date
instead of the publication date, because this date is the closest date to
the invention. Secondly, we wanted to identify key time events to see
whether or not the different sources were interacting across the stages,
as suggested by Brenner [73]. Finally, we wanted to ensure that our
timeframes across datasets were aligned.
In order to process and analyze the data, we used Mira Analytics,2
an analytical platform developed with the Hypertext Preprocessor
(PHP) scripting languages. The software is able to process different
unstructured and semi-structured data from a variety of sources, and
visualize, combine sources in one, utilize a taxonomy for retrieving key
data, and finally, graph nodes and relationships between concepts using
a non force-directed layout.
The process for retrieving, cleaning, combining and visualizing data
consisted of five main steps (Fig. 1), which are described in the fol-
lowing sections.
3.1. Data collection
We used three different commercial databases – Patbase, Scopus and
Proquest – for retrieving patent, scientific and technology information
respectively. However, before describing which data query we used for
each database, a few observations need to be made.
Firstly, patent and scientific literature, unlike data from other open
sources, such as articles, blogs, social media or web pages, is not easily
available from the web. We decided to use semi-structured databases to
avoid crawling and scraping data from open sources [74,75]. Secondly,
although there are other databases on the market that can substitute the
one we used, we chose these databases because they are very popular
among scholars and IP professionals. Thirdly, although commercial
data provides metadata which unstructured data would not, there are
still some restrictions. Specifically, Scopus does not provide all the
metadata that is available in its database in batch download. Fourthly,
commercial databases do not provide data cleaning, which is un-
fortunate, and therefore we needed to apply harmonization between
authors, for example.
To collect data, we applied a query formed by “3D printing” or
“three-dimensional printing” [56], limiting the record to between the
year 2008 and2017.3 Although it is not clear when a breakthrough
technology is visible or successfully introduced in the market [76], we
used a ten-year period of interest, because it concentrates the great
majority of the volume (94,07% for patents, 92.26% for scientific lit-
erature and 92.65% for trade articles). A specific query was used for
each database. For this paper, collection was performed as follows:
• 12,577 families of patents were found in the Patbase 4
database. The
research strategy applied for retrieving the corpus was (TA=("3D
printing" or "three-dimensional printing") and PD = 2008:2017)
limited in the title and abstract field. The data collected from each
record included the following fields:
○ Title
○ Abstract
2
http://www.mira-analytics.com/.
3
For patents we have limited the search query to the priority date (PRD).
Please see: https://minesoft.com/our-products/patbase/.
A. Comai World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Table 1
Export options for each database supplier.
Field Patent Papers (Scopus) Articles (Proquest)
(Patbase)

Title yes yes yes

Summary yes yes yes
Key words – – yes
Main Claims yes – –
Int. class (IC)* yes – –
Priority Date yes – –
Publication Date yes Partially yes (publication)
(publication)**
Inventor/s or yes yes yes
Author/s
Applicant/s yes – Company
Institution/s – yes Companies
Source – yes yes
Link yes yes yes
Fig. 1. Five-step procedure of this research.
(*)For the purpose of this study we did not use the IPC as mandatory in the
software. Although Patbase includes other metadata that can be used in Patent
○ Patent assignee (standard) analysis, we only used those that are comparable with the metadata of the other
○ Inventor (standard) databases. (**)To be precise, the date of an article should refer to its submission
○ Earliest Priority Date date. Similarly, like a patent, the submission date represents the closest date to
○ Int. class (IC) when the topic was discussed by the author/s. It is partial, since Scopus does
○ 1st main claim not provide the month when downloading the papers, only the year of the

• 2601 papers (scholarly articles) and conference proceedings were paper.

extracted from the Scopus database using the following query ("3D
Printing" OR ″three-dimensional printing") limited in the title and Table 2
abstract field and limited to Journals and Conference proceedings. Conversion table between Patbase, Scopus and Proquest datasets.
The data collected from each record included the following fields: Field Type Patent(Patbase) Papers(Scopus) News Articles
○ Title of the scientific paper (Proquest)
○ Abstract of the scientific paper
Title Text field Yes Yes Yes
○ Publishing date Summary or Text field Yes Yes Yes
○ Author name(s) Abstract
○ Affiliation Main Claims Text field Yes – –
○ Name of the source Date Date Yes (priority) Yes (Publication) Yes

• 706 trade journal (magazine) articles extracted from the Proquest Inventors Metadata Yes (Inventors) Yes (Author/s)
(publication)
Yes (author/s)
Central database were used and the query used was (ti(("3D Organization Metadata Yes (Applicants) Yes (Institutions) Yes
printing" OR ″three-dimensional printing")) OR ab(("3D printing" OR (Companies)
″three-dimensional printing")) filtered by date (2008–2017) and Journal or Metadata – Yes (Source) Yes
Magazine
document type (Article) excluding Scholarly Journals, Conference
Name
Papers & Proceedings and Books. The data collected from each re- Link Metadata Yes Yes Yes
cord included the following fields:
○ Title of the article
○ Publishing date performed manually, once each file had been downloaded from each
○ Author name(s) data source.
○ Companies Based on Table 2, it is possible to observe that data is not hetero-
○ Source geneous and not all the fields can be compared directly. To combine the
○ Summary of the article three datasets, first we standardized the temporal data by using the
○ Full text of the article patent priority date instead of the publication date, since the date of the
○ Keywords invention is closer to the priority date than the publication date. Sec-
ondly, we merged the authors of a paper with the inventors of a patent,
To retrieve both scholarly and trade journal articles, we limited our as suggested by Breschi and Catalini [32]. The owner is kept as a se-
query to the title and abstract only (avoiding the use of keywords) in parate entity from the inventors, although in patents inventors and
order to keep the search strategy as close as possible to that used for applicants could be used together. Finally, titles and abstracts are used
patents. Table 1 below shows the differences and similarities between together as text fields in order to extract concepts for all datasets.
the fields available in each database. Table 2 shows the result of this process.

3.2. Uploading and data mashup 3.3. Data cleaning and harmonization

To upload the data to the tool, we implemented two parsing tools
which allowed us to upload the data from the files that were available
in the commercial databases for download. A CSV file format was used
for the Focus and the Proquest databases, and for Patbase we used an
XML file for uploading patents. Data was stored in an open source
NoSQL database MongoDB. This document-based database was used in
order not to limit the data volume. The uploading process was
As discussed earlier, one of the key challenges when combining
datasets is to avoid having metadata, such as names of authors, entities
or concepts, written in different ways. If a harmonization process is not
applied or used correctly, then the entire work might result in erro-
neous analysis and visualization. Thus this activity is critical in any
patent or NPL database, particularly in the metadata provided by sev-
eral databases.

64
A. Comai World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Table 4
Frequency of Categories based on the threshold used in each dataset (number of: Papers, Patent and News Articles).
Papers Patenta News Articles

# Papers # Authors # Universities # Keywords # Patent # Inventors # Applicants # Keywords # Articles # Authors # Organizations # Keywords

1 4973 1088 125 1 1047 954 95 1 729 142 91

2 826 198 114 2 94 540 76 2
7 90 33 106 3 38 91 66 5 9 2 55
13 18 9 98 4 17 61 63 9 2 0 40
18 6 3 91 6 4 31 53 13 2 0 31
19 6 2 90 7 0 16 47 17 2 0 26
25 0 0 78 9 0 6 40 29 1 0 26
– – – 10 0 10 33 – – – –
– – – 11 0 0 33 – – – –

a
Based on the first five hundred most recent families.

Fig. 2. Tool for building Taxonomy.

Although there are several computer-based functions for identifying
similarities between metadata [10], we applied a manual process to
harmonize records, focused on personal names and entities in each
database. For example, to detect the same author in several news ar-
ticles, we organized a spreadsheet sorting the author's column and then
manually reviewed all the authors' names. On the other hand, for pa-
tents, we drew up a list of the main authors ordered according to the
number of patents invented, using the Patbase classification list. We
then compared these listings with the other two datasets. Although the
process can take a long time, its implementation is feasible when re-
moving authors who only have one document. For example, Table 4
shows how quickly the number of documents is reduced by adopting
this threshold. Other mechanical cleaning techniques could have been
considered, but as these are not supported by the tool used, we opted
for a manual process. Additionally, the date also needs to be normalized
and converted, for instance from the MM/DD/YYYY to the DD/MM/
YYYY format. Additionally, for those databases that provide only one
export option, for instance based on Excel files, conversion to the CSV
(Comma Separated Value) format is necessary in order to upload the file
to the software. To do so, an additional cleaning process is required in
order to eliminate some punctuation marks such as commas or semi-
colons which could lead to an error during the interpretation of the CSV
file in the visualization software.

65
A. Comai World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Table 3 The taxonomy is constructed of a hierarchical list of keywords

Parsing fields. formed by categories. Each category groups a list of key word, which in
Field Parsing category turn group a list of similar words or a synonymous term. Therefore, a
taxonomy can be constructed with a maximum of three levels of terms.
Title text However, although all keywords are used for analyzing the text, only
Summary text
two of those that are at the second level are visible in the network
Main Claims text (only for patent)
Date date
graph. Fig. 2 shows a screenshot of the tool used for building the tax-
Owners metadata onomy.
Authors metadata In order to build the taxonomy, we used 144 keywords suggested by
Applicants metadata the Scopus database, each composed of a single word as the starting
Companies metadata
point. Specifically, Scopus shows a list of keywords after searching in
Universities metadata
Magazine or Journal name metadata the database for tailoring, filtering and identifying a wider research list
Link link of papers. The list is developed by using the “indexed keywords” that
the publisher produces for each individual paper. However, some re-
dundant words relating to 3D printing, such as “Printing”, “3D Printer”,
3.4. Taxonomy and text mining “3-D Printing”, “3D Printing” and “Three Dimensional Printing” were
removed from the list, since these were the words and alternatives used
Once the dataset has been created, an extraction method needs to be in the search strategies. Additionally, ten identical words written in
applied to identify keywords and metadata from the datasets. For this singular and plural forms were blended together. The final list consists
study we applied a rule-based extraction method [77] similar to text of 135 keywords grouped under one category title: “concepts”.
mining [14], but using a pre-defined list of keywords or tokens (Tax- The goal is to find the occurrence of metadata and keywords in
onomy). Additionally, metadata was identified and extracted from each unstructured text and then represent the results in a network graph. The
dataset to enrich the analysis of the dataset(s). calculation is made by the software which uses a batch script developed

Fig. 3. Patents 3D Printing Ecosystem (limited to first 500 patents).

66
A. Comai
Fig. 4. Patents 3D Printing Sub-Ecosystems (limited to first 500 patents).
in Node.js.5 Metadata is calculated simply, but in the case of keywords,
we text mine them from the title and the abstract for each record. For
patents, however, we also text mine the main claims, as they are widely
used in patent analysis [24]. The resulting analysis is stored in a JSON
(JavaScript Object Notation) file format, which is then used for the
visualization. The date and link to the original document are main-
tained in their original format (see Table 3).
3.5. Analyzing and visualization
Analysis of the mashup dataset was mainly performed by the D3.js
tool, which is also responsible for drawing the network graph. Based on
the JSON document provided in the previous step, the JavaScript pro-
cesses the calculations of frequency co-occurrence using the following
rules:
• Node definition: a node can either be a metadata item or a keyword.
• Node color: the node color depends on the colors assigned to a
metadata item or a category of keyword in the taxonomy. The color
of a keyword group can be custom assigned and it is totally sub-
jective. However, some metadata colors such as authors or applicant
are hardcoded.
• Node size: for determining the size of a node we applied two cal-
culations. If the node is a metadata item, then we calculate how
5
See: https://nodejs.org.
67
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
many times the metadata is repeated in each record. If the data is
extracted from un/structured text like title and summary, we cal-
culate how many times a keyword appears in the text and then we
calculate the total number. Both methods are based on word fre-
quency. Although this method is quite simple to perform, capturing
and visualizing the most frequent words is of value for organizations
[78].
• Edge thickness: the thickness of an edge shows the number of re-
cords in which both nodes appear together in each record. It de-
termines the concurrence of metadata or keyword in each record.
This feature is quite popular in patent software when the con-
currency of two patent fields is shown [1]. Similarly, in scientific
papers collaboration networks are studied for determining the
connection between two authors that appear in the same paper [79].
In a network graph, the relationship between two authors (edge)
shows the concurrence of two authors in the document.
• Edge color: edges use an axial color gradient based on the color of
the connected nodes.
For graphing nodes and edges, an indirect force graph layout is
used. The graph shows character occurrence of metadata or keywords
in the records of the mashup dataset where nodes are located using
closer proximity of nodes.
4. Results
The aim of this paper is to answer the previously stated questions
A. Comai
Fig. 5. Papers 3D printing ecosystem.
that were posed to fill part of the gap in this particular research topic.
The analysis of the data will allow us to learn from the mashup dataset
and gather insights through network visualizations. The results are
described following each research question.
4.1. Q1. Does a mashup dataset provide a significant contribution enriching
data analysis?
In order to answer this question, we made three separate visuali-
zations and then we merged them together. Firstly, we generated a
Patent-based visualization showing 18,298 inventors by family (red
color), 5650 applicants (purple color) and 92 keywords detected using
the taxonomy (yellow color). Fig. 3 shows the result of the entire eco-
system of patent metadata and keywords based on analysis of the first
500 records.
On the other hand, if the ecosystem graph is simplified into smaller
graphs, each representing the principal categories, the analysis becomes
more feasible. This process is done by selecting one category at a time.
In this way, the resulting graph provides specific data to be analyzed
separately. Fig. 4 shows three “Sub-ecosystems” of the main graph
about: Inventors, Applicants, and Keywords.6
6
When a single category is graphed in the software, only linked nodes are
shown. This means that unconnected nodes, such as an author that published
just one article, will not be visualized by the graph. Therefore, any graph based
on a single category shows at least one pair of nodes which, in the case of the
authors, will be the smallest group. As a result, the total number of nodes in
68
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
Secondly, the Scopus dataset presents a network graph with the
connections of 3333 authors, 655 organizations and 117 keywords.
Fig. 5 shows the analysis of 2601 papers.
Fig. 6 shows four sub-ecosystems based on the four categories
available (metadata and keywords).
Thirdly, the graph based on news articles shows the connections of
727 authors, 142 companies, 280 magazines and 91 keywords (Fig. 7).
From this representation, it is possible to observe that the maximum
size of the edges is one. In other words, all the edges of the graph have a
weight of 1. This means that a couple of metadata or keywords do not
concur in more than one publication. In this particular case, it makes no
sense to reduce the graph to a smaller number of nodes by filtering it
using the size of the edges, because above the value of one the visua-
lization will be empty. Fig. 8 shows details of each category analyzed
separately.
In all three graphs, the largest-size nodes show the most frequent
category resulting from the occurrence of either a metadata item or a
keyword. Additionally, the force-direct algorithm7 tends to allocate the
(footnote continued)
each category is smaller when shown separately rather than together.
7
For more information about the algorithm used in the visualization, please
see https://bl.ocks.org/mbostock/4062045 developed by Mike Bostock. The
force between nodes can be modified using a “force layout” control panel; a tool
that allows modifying: min. and max Link distance, Gravity, Charge Frictions,
Link strength and Charge max. distance. The values of the default settings can
be changed in order to improve for instance highly connected nodes or large
A. Comai
Fig. 6. Papers 3D printing sub-ecosystems.
biggest nodes in the central part of the graphs, due to the proximities of
nodes and the number of interconnections between them. This may be
observed in Figs. 3–6. However, the graph resulting from the analysis of
news articles shows a separately located group of authors in the upper
right-hand corner, because the authors are not connected to any key-
word.
On the other hand, the most frequent nodes also tend to be highly
interrelated and have the greatest number of connections. Specifically,
the graph relating to papers (Fig. 8) shows that there are a great number
of authors who work in 3D printing, but this number falls drastically
from 8273 to 90 when the node size is filtered to one or more articles.
Consequently, the reduced network graph tends to show the most active
authors. This filter can be applied to each graph. Fig. 9 shows a graph of
each dataset made by limiting the minimum size of nodes.
From a bibliometric perspective, Table 4 shows the results of the
occurrence of each key category of the three datasets based on the filter
applied. It may be observed that the number of the stakeholders is re-
duced more quickly than the number of keywords. This is because one
topic is of interest to many stakeholders.
The network resulting from the combination of the three datasets
shows that the number of nodes increases significantly the complexity
(footnote continued)
clustered nodes.
69
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
of the entire ecosystem. The increase of complexity allows enrich the
dataset for the analysis. For instance, combining three unrelated dataset
which includes the same metadata (see Table 3) simplifies the analysis
and visualization. The resulting nodes of metadata, grow in size. The
sum of the three metadata highlights relevant insights. In the case that
metadata are different the mushup is able to show that new community
that are not visible.
4.2. Q2. Which option can be adopted to meet the technological challenges
of visualizing large volumes of data?
In order to present a less cluttered, more readable graph [70], we
reduced the number of non-relevant nodes. Specifically, we have ap-
plied a threshold based on the idea that those nodes with less than three
occurrences are not relevant, because authors, organizations or key-
words that do not appear at least once in the three databases do not
show any links with the datasets (see Fig. 10).
However, even when the filters were applied, the graph is very in-
tensive in the analysis, due in particular to the fragmentation of authors
and organizations. The majority of the groups were still detected in
separate databases and the Mashup did not provide any additional in-
sight. On the other hand, the rendering process of the network graph
take important time which make more difficult the navigation and the
extraction of insight when using the whole data sets.
To tackle the problem of visualizing a large amount of data we used
A. Comai World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Fig. 7. News articles 3D printing ecosystem.

the “maximum spanning tree” (MST) algorithm, which highlights the Fig. 9) can reduce backend data processing and the visualization
strongest edges and we focused only on concepts. In other words, the charge. Breaking down large datasets into smaller might be able to cope
MST algorithm prunes the non-relevant connection. Fig. 11 shows an with technological challenges and offer suitable solutions. In the next
example of the interconnection between the most important topics that section some examples are discussed where the application of filters
have been added into the Taxonomy (see section 3.2). From each node, provides insights.
it is also possible to analyze how the keyword evolved during the ten-
year period in comparison with others. MTS is very useful when
5. Discussion
working with large amount of concepts as it clusters into a hierarchical
relationships of words. However, MTS is not suitable for studying actors
The findings from this exploratory analysis show that the mashup of
and therefore a different method is needed to reduce complexity (see
scientific and technological data enriches the knowledge of a particular
Fig. 12).
technological domain. Specifically, each dataset produced events at
An alternative solution to working with large datasets is to apply
different times which can potentially show how a technology evolves
filters which reduce the number of nodes as well as the number of
over time. For instance, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. identified how
edges. In our knowledge, the options can be focused on the selection of
each technology source contributes to the strength of the technology
(1) few metadata or categories, (2) the most important period of years
signals, when a possible new product could be launched by a firm
and (3) a threshold to the node size. In order to build the Mashup, we
[73].When data sources come into play at different times and if a
used a combination of these three filters as follows: first, we selected the
technology is detected at an early stage, an early warning sign can be
keywords category focused on title and abstract; secondly, we used the
provided which can also be used for assessing strengths and weaknesses
last three years of data available (2015–2017), which includes 80.69%
of competitors [80]. Additionally, the connections of multiple isolated
of all Patents (11,659 records), 76.85% of Papers (1999 records), and
events increase an understanding of the whole evolution of a particular
55.96% of News Articles (395 records); and finally, we applied a
technology, which may be possible to see by using a timeline or a
threshold of ≥1 node size. The final Mashup graph based initially on
historical map, as suggested by Bruce et al., [81]. This would be very
15,555 records extracted from the three databases resulted in a total of
difficult and extremely time-consuming if it is managed manually.
10,519 records. The resultant sub-ecosystem is shown in Fig. 9.
Combining three datasets proves to be synergetic and brings some
We consider therefore, that the most convenient solution when
benefits. Moreover, if three key filters like (1) Time line (2) Size of the
coping with large volume of data is re-arranging datasets and the vi-
nodes and (3) Size of the edges are applied in combination to analyze
sualization according to the questions that the analyst needs to answer.
the mashup dataset, then it is possible to extract additional insights.
To do so, dataset should be reduced first (backend), for instance looking
Hereunder, we will describe them starting from the most generic benefit
for the a specific group of metadata, and then visualize (frontend).
and finishing with the most specific, which requires the application of
Additionally, using one or more filters (see the examples provided in
filters:

70
A. Comai
Fig. 8. News articles 3D printing sub-ecosystems.
1. Frequency of nodes: The most frequent keywords and metadata in
the mashup are those that are more relevant or are leading.
Identifying important themes helps gain an understanding of the
state of the art of a particular technology. Fig. 9 shows an example
of how a relevant author and/or inventor as well as a relevant topic
can be spotted in the network graph by using node filtering. Ad-
ditionally, the combination of both stakeholders and themes can be
used to see who is working in what. On the other hand, the iden-
tification of underdeveloped themes may offer an opportunity for
some stakeholders.
2. Interrelated words: The detection of multiple connected words
may show a cluster of concepts. Fig. 8 shows that Tissue en-
gineering, Tissue bone and Surgery are strongly connected words in
71
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
3D printing. Additionally, Human and Cells are connected to Tissue.
The layout is made by applying the “maximum spanning tree” al-
gorithm, which helps focus on what are potentially the most re-
levant and discussed topics in the whole corpus when looking at the
different main branches as isolated clusters.
3. Gatekeepers. The detection of gatekeepers that are visible in all
datasets shows that there are very strong groups formed of co-au-
thors or co-inventors, but in separate datasets (Figs. 6 and 8).
However, the connections that provide bridges between the dif-
ferent scientific and technology datasets are less visible, as sug-
gested by the findings of [32].
4. Early or late entrants: Early or late entrants or emerging and over-
discussed themes can be detected by using the timeline available in
A. Comai
Fig. 9. Network of patents, papers and news articles.
each graph. The timeline helps detect new stakeholders that stand
out at the beginning or at the end of the period of time.
5. Trend detection: Detecting which topics are growing or declining
over time may show emerging interest in the scientific arena. This
analysis can be made by specifically looking at the keywords that
appear in the mashup ecosystem. For example, descriptive analysis
(Fig. 11) shows that the keyword “design” is not only the most
frequent word in the corpus, but also the one that has grown most in
the last five years with respect to the overall number of documents
72
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
published per year (Figs. 3 and 4 for patents and papers respec-
tively). Similarly, other keywords can be observed, to be specific,
those that are the most frequent or those that appear least in recent
or previous years.
In addition to the previous insights, a combination of different fil-
ters can also be used to enrich the analysis. As there is no one size fits
all, it is necessary to select filters and datasets (as shown in Fig. 9) in
relation to the insights users want to obtain from the data. Table 5
A. Comai World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77

Fig. 10. Mashup ecosystem.

Fig. 11. News articles 3D printing ecosystem.

summarizes ten potential insights which can be obtained by combining priorities.

two filters together from a total of five available in the tool.
Highly interactive visualizations engage practitioners in an in-
tensive user experience, not only because data can be explored visually
[52] or focused on a specific item [52], but also because filters and
other mechanisms adapt the graph according to users’ needs and
Additionally, it is imperative that users understand how the visual
representation is made to avoid misrepresentation especially for con-
cepts analysis and semantic visualizations. “While the existence of a
link indicates the existence of a relationship, viewing the sources allows
the user to gain an understanding of the relationship's semantics” [16].

73
A. Comai
Fig. 12. Mashup 3D Printing Sub-ecosystem filtered by Category, Years, Size of edges.
The procedure for determining the links and the weight between the
patent did not use any complex calculation, such as artificial in-
telligence techniques, for example, as suggested by Chao-Chan and
Ching-Bang [19]. We are convinced that when the user cannot under-
stand the process in which the links are defined, it is more difficult to
interpret the final results.
On the other hand, although academic papers have some similarities
with patents [38], we find it very hard to combine both. The most
challenging part is when data need a very important harmonization
procedure and/or the data have not been cleaned correctly by the
original source. Harmonization is a time-consuming process and needs
to be applied in each dataset. Surprisingly, to date this issue has yet to
be resolved.
6. Conclusion
This study uses a data-driven approach to show how different da-
tasets can be combined and value extracted from them. Text analytics
techniques are able to enrich the analysis of any datasets by providing
compelling and interactive visualizations that aid summarization and
show insights, but only when appropriate filters are applied. In con-
trast, the visualization of large amounts of data turns them into noise.
Although any potential integration of data is technically possible, the
process must meet the needs of the user. Thus integration should be
user-driven, rather than technically driven. The implications of our
study include at least five points.
Firstly, visualization per se needs to be tailored to the user's needs.
We consider that pre-settled filters should be prepared to address spe-
cific user needs as well as answer key technology [9] or business or-
iented questions. Additionally, in order to reduce the amount of noise
and focus on the most relevant information, filters should be used.
According to Ellis and Dix [82], “most of the visualizations need to
adopt strategies for dealing with overcrowded displays”. Filters, how-
ever, can be specific setting available in the tool and that user can use to
adjust the visualization according to their needs (as described in
Table 5) or algorithms embed in the tool to produce readable visuali-
zation as suggested by Nick et al. (2013) for instance.
Secondly, it is imperative to understand how tools interpret the
data. We strongly believe that this is key for any data visualization tool
and specifically for users who are not specialists with this kind of tool. It
is not surprising that simple word counting has been widely accepted
and valued [78]. In contrast, complex algorithms may make the inter-
pretation of the data harder, and they require experience and time. This
74
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
does not form part of the work of those who simply need quick insights
in order to take decisions. For instance, software such as Quid,8 which
embeds sophisticated private algorithms, is less transparent about the
processing of the data. In contrast, other tools like Leximancer [18]
show the logic behind the data processing. Perhaps open sources can
play an important role in facilitating analysis procedures and socia-
lizing them among users. The software Gephi,9 for example, is a tool
that is mostly used by data science experts, rather than by general
management.
Thirdly, working with large corpora of data does not guarantee
gathering insights. Data and network visualizations should be adjusted
to the specific research question, for instance, by focusing on a parti-
cular subject or by filtering nodes and relationships to obtain the most
significant data text. In addition, applying MST algorithms helps to
eliminate the less relevant relationships. These techniques prove ef-
fective while human efforts seek to process a large number of visual
stimuli, especially in large network visualization.
Fourthly, particular attention needs to be paid to taxonomy when
using text mining capacity. Very different results are achieved ac-
cording to the key words used and how these are organized in the
taxonomy. Anecdotal observations show that two companies in the
same sector could conceive a taxonomy in different ways. On the other
hand, a taxonomy may be enriched with new categories and/or terms
over time, in order to show the most up-to-date information possible, or
terms need to be translated to overcome language barriers when
working with multiple foreign databases. Additionally, utilizing a single
taxonomy in the Mashup dataset improves the analysis not only of the
aggregated dataset, but also of each separate dataset. This is because
the taxonomy is provided from a single tool, rather than from separate
databases or providers with different graphs and logics.
Fifthly, the mashup could be represented by the intersection of all
the analyzed datasets (in our case “Papers ∩ Patent ∩ News” on a
specific category), this being a subset of the total. If this approach were
applied to see what is in common across all datasets, it could drama-
tically reduce the workload and computational operation when datasets
are treated separately.
Finally, although there is still work to be done in this area, we are
confident that more scholars will devote attention to this issue and
produce norms, models and software to provide solutions. We consider
that future tools should incorporate mechanisms that facilitate
8
See: https://quid.com/.
9
https://gephi.org/.
 A. Comai

Table 5
Insights from cross filtering.
Larger Node size Smaller Node size Larger Edge size Smaller Edge size Last in Time Early in time

It shows the most frequent
nodes.
It helps gain an understanding of
what the most shared themes are
and/or who the main leaders
(stakeholders) are.
Smaller *Filters do not apply.
Node
size
Larger It shows confirmed relationships
Edge between strong stakeholders
It shows the less frequent nodes.
It helps gain an understanding of
what the least shared themes are
and/or who the least active
(stakeholders) are.
It shows confirmed relationships
between weak stakeholders and/
It shows higher concurrence between
two nodes
It helps gain an understanding that at
least two concepts or topics are
strongly related or strong partnerships
are built between two or more
stakeholders.
It shows lesser concurrence between
two nodes
It helps gain an understanding that at
least two concepts or topics are weakly
connected or sporadic partnerships are
built between two or more
stakeholders.
It produces a recent network
It helps focus on the most up-to-date
network that can showcase new
issues or stakeholders that have
emerged or become involved in a
new project.
It produces an early network
It helps focus on the historical
network which may show
stakeholders and topics that
have disappeared over time.

75
size and/or topics. or topics.
Smaller Not relevant. Not relevant *Filters do not apply.
Edge
size
Last in It shows confirmed stakeholders It shows new entrants It shows new or emergent strong It shows new or emergent weak
Time and topics. (stakeholders) or emergent concurrence between two or more concurrence between two or more
topics which may pose a threat. concepts or strong partnerships concepts or weak partnerships between
between two or more stakeholders are two or more stakeholders are built.
built.
Early in It shows important stakeholders It shows weak stakeholders and It shows past strong concurrence It helps seeing beyond weak *Filters do not apply.
time and topics at an early stage. topics which may disappear. between two or more concepts or past concurrence between two or more
Most infrequent themes. strong partnerships built between two concepts or beyond weak partnerships
or more stakeholders. built between two or more
stakeholders.

The symbol (*) in the cells shows that the combination of the two filters does not add any value.
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
A. Comai
procedures, highlights the key features to avoid “hairball” effects [83],
and even facilitate human interaction, such as, for example, through
voice recognition, as suggested by Srinivasan and Stasko [84], new
visualization prototypes [85], or predefined settings as introduced in
Table 5, which accelerate and facilitate the interpretation of data, but
focus on answering the most difficult management questions.
This study has focused on a specific technology using a limited
number of keywords in the search query. Further work can be devoted
to analyzing addictive manufacturing and/or the various applications
separately and in several data sources, in order to understand the entire
3D printing ecosystem. An additional limitation is related to the tax-
onomy, which is based on a predetermined list of keywords. The tax-
onomy we used was not intended to be exhaustive nor to satisfy specific
interests. Thus, in order to conduct research into specific applications or
processes, several taxonomies can be personalized and applied. On the
other hand, in order to explore new fields of application or new tech-
nologies, it is possible to apply static methods to detect keywords that
were explicitly or implicitly ignored by humans. Public algorithms such
as the “TF/iDF” (Term frequency/inverse document frequency) [19] or
the “Jaccard index”, as well as proprietary algorithms which use Nat-
ural Language Processing (NLP) or statistical calculations like the one
used by Randhawa et al. [18], can help to extract important keywords
that could definitely enrich the analysis.
References
[1] A.J. Trippe, Patinformatics: tasks to tools, World Patent Inf. 25 (3) (2003) 211–221
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0172-2190(03)00079-6.
[2] J.C. Vergara, A. Comai, J. Tena Millán, Evaluation of Software and Technological
Intelligence Needs, Emecom Ediciones S.L., Barcelona, 2006.
[3] Y.Y. Yang, L. Akers, C.B. Yang, T. Klose, S. Pavlek, Enhancing patent landscape
analysis with visualization output, World Patent Inf. 32 (3) (2010) 203–220 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2009.12.006.
[4] O. Alexy, P. Criscuolo, A. Salter, Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation?
MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 51 (1) (2009) 71.
[5] T. Albert, Measuring Technology Maturity. Operationalizing Information from
Patents, Scientific Publications, and the Web, Springer Gabler, 2016.
[6] H. Chesbrough, The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property, Calif.
Manag. Rev. 45 (3) (2003) 33–58.
[7] J. Yu, B. Benatallah, D. Casati, D. Florian, Understanding mashup development,
IEEE Internet Computing 12 (5) (2008) 44–52 https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2008.
114.
[8] A. Abbas, L. Zhang, S.U. Khan, A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent
analysis, World Patent Inf. 37 (2014) 3–13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2013.12.
006.
[9] A.L. Porter, S.W. Cunningham, Generating and presenting innovation indicators, in:
A.L. Porter, S.W. Cunningham (Eds.), Tech Mining: Exploiting New Technologies for
Competitive Advantage, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, 2005, pp. 249–288.
[10] S.M.R. Beheshti, B. Benatallah, S. Venugopal, et al., A systematic review and
comparative analysis of cross-document coreference resolution methods and tools,
Computing 99 (4) (2017) 313–349 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-016-0490-0.
[11] C. Sternitzke, A. Bartkowski, H. Schwanbeck, R. Schramm, Patent and literature
statistics – the case of optoelectronics, World Patent Information, World Patent Inf.
29 (4) (2007) 327–338 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2007.03.003.
[12] M. Fattori, G. Pedrazzi, R. Turra, Text mining applied to patent mapping: a practical
business case, World Patent Inf. 25 (4) (2003) 335–342 https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0172-2190(03)00113-3.
[13] B. Yoon, Y. Park, A text-mining-based patent network: analytical tool for high-
technology trend, J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 15 (1) (2004) 37–50 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.hitech.2003.09.003.
[14] Y. Tseng, C. Lin, Y. Lin, Text mining techniques for patent analysis Information,
Proc. Manag. 43 (5) (2007) 1216–1247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.
011.
[15] S.-Y. Yang, V.-W. Soo, Extract conceptual graphs from plain texts in patent claims,
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 25 (4) (2012) 874–887 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.
2011.11.006.
[16] A. Kochtchi, T. von Landesberger, C. Biemann, Networks of names: visual ex-
ploration and semi-automatic tagging of social networks from newspaper articles,
Comput. Graph. Forum 33 (3) (2014) 211–220 https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12377.
[17] Y.G. Kim, J.H. Suh, S.C. Park, Visualization of patent analysis for emerging tech-
nology, Expert Syst. Appl. 34 (3) (2008) 1804–1812 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2007.01.033.
[18] K. Randhawa, R. Wilden, J.S. Hohberger, A bibliometric review of open innovation:
setting a research agenda, J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 33 (6) (2016) 750–772 https://
doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312.
[19] W. Chao-Chan, Y. Ching-Bang, Constructing an intelligent patent network analysis,
Data Sci. J. 11 (2012) 110–125 https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.011-003.
[20] K. Meijer, F. Frasincar, F. Hogenboom, A semantic approach for extracting domain
76
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
taxonomies from text, Decis. Support Syst. 62 (2014) 78–93 https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.dss.2014.03.006.
[21] T.R. Gruber, A translation approach to portable ontology specifications, Knowl.
Acquis. 5 (2) (1993) 199–220 https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
[22] S. Tuarob, P. Mitra, C. Lee Giles, Taxonomy-based query-dependent schemes for
profile similarity measurement, Conference Paper Number 8 Presented at the “1st
Joint International Workshop on Entity-oriented and Semantic Search, JIWES 2012
- Co-located with the 35th ACM SIGIR Conference”, Portland, OR, United States,
August 2012, pp. 12–16.
[23] L.M. Garshol, Metadata? thesauri? taxonomies? topic maps! making sense of it all,
J. Inf. Sci. 20 (4) (2004) 378–391 https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551504045856.
[24] Z. Xie, K. Miyazaki, Evaluating the effectiveness of keyword search strategy for
patent identification, World Patent Inf. 35 (1) (2013) 20–30 https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wpi.2012.10.005.
[25] R.C. Basole, Visualizing ecosystems of hype, Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 2018, pp. 4964–4973.
[26] B.P. Abraham, S.D. Moitra, Innovation assessment through patent analysis,
Technovation 21 (4) (2001) 245–252 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)
00040-7.
[27] A.J. Nelson, Measuring knowledge spillovers: what patents, licenses and publica-
tions reveal about innovation diffusion, Res. Pol. 38 (6) (2009) 994–1005 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.023.
[28] F. Narin, E. Noma, Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics 7 (3) (1985)
369–381 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017155.
[29] H.R. Coward, J.J. Franklin, Identifying the science-technology interface: matching
patent data to a bibliometric model, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 14 (1) (1989) 50–77
https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398901400106.
[30] E.C.M. Noyons, A.F.J. van Raan, H. Grupp, U. Schmoch, Exploring the science and
technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research, Res. Pol.
23 (4) (1994) 443–457 https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90007-8.
[31] D. Bonino, A. Ciaramella, F. Corno, Review of the state-of-the-art in patent in-
formation and forthcoming evolutions in intelligent patent informatics, World
Patent Inf. 32 (1) (2010) 30–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2009.05.008.
[32] S. Breschi, C. Catalini, Tracing the links between science and technology: an ex-
ploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks, Res. Pol. 39 (1) (2010)
14–26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.004.
[33] F. Lissoni, Academic inventors as brokers, Res. Pol. 39 (7) (2010) 843–857 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.005.
[34] J. Howells, Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Res. Pol. 35
(5) (2006) 715–728 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.
[35] H.M. Järvenpääa, S.J. Mäkinena, M. Seppänena, Patent and publishing activity
sequence over a technology's life cycle, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78 (2)
(2011) 283–293 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.06.020.
[36] F. Narin, Patent bibliometrics, Scientometrics 30 (1) (1994) 147–155 https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02017219.
[37] F. Narin, D. Olivastro, Status report: linkage between technology and science, Res.
Pol. 21 (3) (1992) 237–249 https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(92)90018-Y.
[38] M. Thelwall, Bibliometrics to webometrics, J. Inf. Sci. 34 (4) (2008) 605–621
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551507087238.
[39] H.D. White, K.W. McCain, Bibliometrics, in: M.E. Williams (Ed.), Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, vol. 24, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
1989, pp. 119–186.
[40] S. Haustein, V. Larivière, The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibi-
lities, limitations and adverse effects, in: I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan,
M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and Performance, Springer International Publishing
Switzerland, 2015, pp. 121–139.
[41] R.J.W. Tussen, R.K. Buter, ThN. van Leeuwen, Technological relevance of science:
an assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers,
Scientometrics 47 (2) (2000) 389–412 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100560351.
[42] C. Sternitzke, A. Bartkowski, R. Schramma, Visualizing patent statistics by means of
social network analysis tools, World Patent Inf. 30 (2) (2008) 115–131 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wpi.2007.08.003.
[43] Next-generation Metrics: Responsible Metrics and Evaluation for Open Science,
(2017) European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/
report.pdf , Accessed date: 21 March 2018.
[44] D.F. Jerding, J.T. Stasko, The information mural: a technique for displaying and
navigating large information spaces, IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 4 (3)
(1998) 257–271 https://doi.org/10.1109/2945.722299.
[45] H. Chen, R.H. Chiang, V.C. Storey, Business intelligence and analytics: from big data
to big impact, MIS Q. 36 (4) (2012) 1165–1188 https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.
2133826.
[46] T.H. Davenport, Analytics 3.0, Harv. Bus. Rev. 91 (12) (2013) 64–72 https://hbr.
org/2013/12/analytics-30.
[47] H.A. van den Berg, Three shapes of organisational knowledge, J. Knowl. Manag. 17
(2) (2013) 159–174 https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315141.
[48] N.H. Lurie, C.H. Mason, Visual representation: implications for decision making, J.
Market. 71 (1) (2007) 160–177 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.160.
[49] D.A. Keim, F. Mansmann, J. Schneidewind, H. Ziegler, Challenges in Visual Data
Analysis Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Visualisation,
2006, pp. 9–14. Article number 1648235.
[50] J.-D. Fekete, C. Plaisant, Interactive information visualization of a million items,
Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization Vol. 2002 INFO VIS,
January, 2002, pp. 117–124. Article number 1173156.
[51] R.C. Basole, M.G. Russell, J. Huhtamäki, N. Rubens, K. Still, H. Park, Understanding
business ecosystem dynamics: a data-driven approach, ACM Trans. Manag. Inform.
Syst. (TMIS). 6 (2) (2015) 1–32 https://doi.org/10.1145/2724730.
A. Comai
[52] D.A. Keim, Information visualization and visual data mining, IEEE Trans. Visual.
Comput. Graph. 8 (1) (2002) 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1109/2945.981847.
[53] J. Huhtamäki, M. Garrett Russell, K. Still, Processing data for visual network ana-
lytics: innovation ecosystem experiences, in: E. Bendoly, S. Clark (Eds.), Visual
Analytics for Management Translational Science and Applications in Practice,
Taylor & Francis, 2016, pp. 56–71.
[54] M.E. Newman, The structure and function of complex networks, SIAM Rev. 45 (2)
(2003) 167–256 https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480.
[55] P.L. Chang, C.C. Wu, H.J. Leu, Using patent analyses to monitor the technological
trends in an emerging field of technology: a case of carbon nanotube field emission
display, Scientometrics 82 (1) (2000) 5–19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-
0033-y.
[56] H. Dou, P. Clerc, Trends in 3-D printing from a patent information analysis (APA),
Int. J. Technol. Intell. Plann. 10 (3/4) (2015) 354–372 https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJTIP.2015.070854.
[57] C. Sternitzke, Bergmann, Similarity measures for document mapping: a comparative
study on the level of an individual scientist, Scientometrics 78 (1) (2009) 113–130
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1961-z.
[58] S.T. Card, J.D. Mackinlay, B. Scheiderman, Readings in Information Visualization,
Using Vision to Think Ist, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1999.
[59] C. Wong, J. Thomas, Visual analytics, IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 24 (5) (2004)
20–21 https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2004.39.
[60] J. Heer, B. Shneiderman, Interactive Dynamics for visual Analysis. A taxonomy of
tools that support the fluent and flexible use of visualizations, Commun. ACM 55 (4)
(2012) 45–54 https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133821.
[61] Visualizing social networks, J. Soc. Struct. (2000), http://www.cmu.edu/joss/
content/articles/volume1/Freeman.html , Accessed date: 21 March 2018.
[62] S.P. Borgatti, A. Mehra, D.J. Brass, G. Labianca, Network analysis in the social
sciences, Science 323 (5916) (2009) 892–895 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1165821.
[63] N. De Bellis, Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis: from the Science Citation Index to
Cybermetrics, Scarecrow Press Inc., Lanham, 2009.
[64] P. Ritala, J. Hallikas, Network position of a firm and the tendency to collaborate
with competitors—a structural embeddedness perspective, Int. J. Strategic Bus.
Alliances (IJSBA) 2 (4) (2011) 307–328 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSBA.2011.
044859.
[65] T. Satomi, T. Ryoko, Generation of weak ties in a growing network: network ana-
lysis of co-inventor relationships, Int. J. Knowl. Learn. 5 (1) (2009) 26–36 https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2009.024544.
[66] G.C. Kane, M. Alavi, G. Labianca, S.P. Borgatti, S.P, What's different about social
media networks? A framework and research agenda, MIS Q. 38 (1) (2014) 275–304
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.1.13.
[67] D.L. Hansen, B. Shneiderman, M.A. Smith, Analyzing Social Media Networks with
NodeXL: Insights from a Connected World, Elsevier Inc., 2011.
[68] C. Lee, B. Song, Y. Park, How to assess patent infringement risks: a semantic patent
claim analysis using dependency relationships, Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 25 (1)
(2013) 23–38 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.748893.
[69] Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey
Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/
our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation 2011. (accessed 21 March
2018).
[70] K. Sugiyama, S. Tagawa, M. Toda, Methods for visual understanding of hierarchical
77
World Patent Information 55 (2018) 61–77
system structures, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybernetics 11 (2) (1981) 109–125
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308636.
[71] B. Xu, L. Yun, Technology resources distribution characteristics of 3D printing:
based on patent bibliometric analysis, Int. J. Technol. Transf. Commer. 14 (2)
(2016) 171–195 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2016.081646.
[72] T. Rayna, L. Striukova, From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: how 3D
printing is changing business model innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 102
(2015) 214–224 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023.
[73] M.S. Brenner, Technology intelligence and technology scouting, Compet. Intell.
Rev. 70 (3) (1996) 20–27 https://doi.org/10.1002/cir.3880070306.
[74] S. Chakrabartia, M. van den Bergb, B. Domc, Focused crawling: a new approach to
topic-specific Web resource discovery, Comput. Network. 31 (11–16) (1999)
1623–1640 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-1286(99)00052-3.
[75] D. Glez-Peña, A. Lourenço, H. López-Fernández, M. Reboiro-Jato, F. Fdez-Riverola,
Web scraping technologies in an API world, Briefings Bioinf. 15 (5) (2014) 788–797
https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbt026.
[76] J.R. Ortt, D.J. Langley, N. Pals, Exploring the market for breakthrough technologies,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74 (9) (2007) 1788–1804 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2007.05.009.
[77] S. Sarawagi, Information extraction, Found. Trends Databases 1 (3) (2008) 261–377
https://doi.org/10.1561/1900000003.
[78] Z. Khan, T. Vorley, Big data text analytics: an enabler of knowledge management, J.
Knowl. Manag. 21 (1) (2017) 18–34 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2015-0238.
[79] M.E. Newman, Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and
fundamental results, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001) 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevE.64.016131.
[80] F. Narin, E. Noma, Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength, Res.
Pol. 16 (2–4) (1987) 143–155 https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(87)90028-X.
[81] C.D. Bruce, B. Davis, N. Sinclair, et al., Understanding gaps in research networks:
using “spatial reasoning” as a window into the importance of networked educa-
tional research, Educ. Stud. Math. 95 (2) (2017) 143–161 https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10649-016-9743-2.
[82] G. Ellis, A. Dix, A taxonomy of clutter reduction for information visualization, IEEE
Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 13 (6) (2007) 1216–1223 https://doi.org/10.1109/
TVCG.2007.70535.
[83] Graphs from the Internet: Analysis and Visualization of Large Dynamic Networks,
(2017) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxO7XNG6i53WVVVwRHpqM0ZNZFU/
view , Accessed date: 12 August 2018.
[84] A. Srinivasan, J. Stasko, Orko: facilitating multimodal interaction for visual network
exploration and analysis, InfoVis (2017).
[85] K. Bharat, Visualization of Large Diverse Collections of Scholarly Outputs, 2018,
Northern Illinois University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 201810750921.
Alessandro Comai is a marketing associate professor at the Graduate School of
Management of the International University of Japan (IUJ). Previously joining IUJ he
was, an associate professor at the University of Pompeu Fabra, (Barcelona, Spain) and a
visiting professor at Tampere University of Technology (Tampere, Finland) were he re-
searched and taught business, marketing and technology intelligence (CI). He is currently
doing research in Competitive Technology Intelligence, Open Innovation and data-text
Analytics. Alessandro has a Ph.D. in management science (ESADE), MBA and BSc
(Honors) in Engineering.