IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v68y2006i3d10.1007_s11192-006-0129-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Meyer

    (SPRU, University of Sussex, Freeman Centre; Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, K.U.Leuven; Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business)

Abstract

Summary Policy-makers in many countries emphasize the importance of non-publication output of university research. Increasingly, policies are pursued that attempt to encourage entrepreneurial activity in universities and public research institutes. Apart from generating spin-out companies, technology licensing, and collaborative research, attention is focused on patenting activities of researchers. Some analysts suggest that there is a trade-off between scholarly publication and patenting activity. This paper explores this relationship drawing on a data set of nanoscience publications and nanotechnology patents in three European countries. In particular, this study examines whether researchers who both publish and patent are more productive and more highly cited than their peers who concentrate on scholarly publication in communicating their research results. Furthermore, this study investigates the collaborative activity of inventor-authors and their position in their respective networks of scientific communication. The findings suggest that overall there seems to be no adverse relationship between publication and patenting activity, at least not in this area of science and technology. Patenting scientists appear to outperform their solely publishing, non-inventing peers in terms of publication counts and citation frequency. However, while they are considerably over-represented in the top performance class, the data indicates that inventor-authors may not occupy top positions within that group. An analysis of co-authorship links indicates that patenting authors can also play a prominent role within networks of scientific communication. The network maps also point to groups where inventor-authors occur frequently and others where this is not the case, which possibly reflects cognitive differences between sub-fields. Finally, the data indicates that inventor-authors account only for a marginal share of publishing scholars while they play a substantial role amongst inventors.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Meyer, 2006. "Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 545-560, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:68:y:2006:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-006-0129-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0129-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-006-0129-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-006-0129-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yashuang Qi & Na Zhu & Yujia Zhai & Ying Ding, 2018. "The mutually beneficial relationship of patents and scientific literature: topic evolution in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 893-911, May.
    2. Tom Magerman & Bart Looy & Xiaoyan Song, 2010. "Exploring the feasibility and accuracy of Latent Semantic Analysis based text mining techniques to detect similarity between patent documents and scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 289-306, February.
    3. Saveria Capellari & Domenico Stefano, 2014. "University-owned and university-invented patents: a network analysis on two Italian universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 313-329, May.
    4. Antje Klitkou & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2010. "The relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Norway," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(1), pages 93-108, January.
    5. Junghee Han & Jungho Kim, 2016. "Empirical Analysis Of Technology Transfer In Korean Universities," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(08), pages 1-26, December.
    6. Callaert, Julie & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart & Verganti, Roberto, 2015. "Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 990-998.
    7. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    8. Phil Yihsing Yang & Yuan-Chieh Chang, 2010. "Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(2), pages 403-421, May.
    9. Hajar Sotudeh & Nahid Khoshian, 2014. "Gender differences in science: the case of scientific productivity in Nano Science & Technology during 2005–2007," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 457-472, January.
    10. K. A. Khor & L. G. Yu, 2020. "Revealing key topics shifts in thermal barrier coatings (TBC) as indicators of technological developments for aerospace engines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1763-1781, November.
    11. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    12. Beaudry, Catherine & Allaoui, Sedki, 2012. "Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1589-1606.
    13. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    14. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    15. Yoshiyuki Takeda & Shiho Mae & Yuya Kajikawa & Katsumori Matsushima, 2009. "Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: A bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(1), pages 23-38, July.
    16. Manuel Krauskopf & Erwin Krauskopf & Bernardita Méndez, 2007. "Low awareness of the link between science and innovation affects public policies in developing countries: The Chilean case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 93-103, July.
    17. Elvira Cerver Romero & João J. M. Ferreira & Cristina I. Fernandes, 2021. "The multiple faces of the entrepreneurial university: a review of the prevailing theoretical approaches," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1173-1195, August.
    18. Pereira, Cristiano Gonçalves & Lavoie, Joao Ricardo & Garces, Edwin & Basso, Fernanda & Dabić, Marina & Porto, Geciane Silveira & Daim, Tugrul, 2019. "Forecasting of emerging therapeutic monoclonal antibodies patents based on a decision model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 185-199.
    19. Nicola Baldini, 2008. "Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(2), pages 289-311, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:68:y:2006:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-006-0129-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.