Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology
AbstractThis paper explores the relationship between scientific publication and patenting activity. More specifically, this research examines for the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology 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. This study is based on an analysis of the nanoscience publications and nanotechnology patents of a small set of European countries. While only a very small number of nanoscientists appear to hold patents in nanotechnology, a considerable number of nano-inventors seem to be actively publishing nanoscience research. Overall, the patenting scientists appear to outperform their solely publishing, non-inventing peers in terms of publication counts and citation frequency. However, a closer examination of the highly active and cited nano-authors points to a slightly different situation. While still over-represented among the highly cited authors, inventor-authors appear not to be among the most highly cited authors in that category with one notable exception. A policy-relevant conclusion is that, generally speaking, patenting activity does not appear to have an adverse impact on the publication and citation performance of researchers.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex in its series SPRU Working Paper Series with number 144.
Length: 35 pages
Date of creation: 11 Apr 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Jubilee Building G08, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SL
Phone: +44 (0)1273 686758
Fax: +44 (0)1273 685865
Web page: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru
More information through EDIRC
nanotechnology; inventors; bibliometrics; patenting activity; publications;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O34 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-04-29 (All new papers)
- NEP-INO-2006-04-29 (Innovation)
- NEP-SOG-2006-04-29 (Sociology of Economics)
- NEP-TID-2006-04-29 (Technology & Industrial Dynamics)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Bradley, Samantha R. & Hayter, Christopher S. & Link, Albert N., 2013.
"Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: An Exploratory Look,"
13-4, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
- Samantha Bradley & Christopher Hayter & Albert Link, 2013. "Proof of Concept Centers in the United States: an exploratory look," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 349-381, August.
- Arianna Martinelli & Martin Meyer & Nick Tunzelmann, 2008. "Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 259-283, June.
- Can Huang & Ad Notten & Nico Rasters, 2011. "Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: a review of social science studies and search strategies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 145-172, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Russell Eke).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.