IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v212y2025ics0040162524007479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prominence of corporate science in quantum computing research

Author

Listed:
  • Ko, Hyunmin
  • Kwon, Seokbeom

Abstract

In this study, we empirically examined the growing prominence of corporate science and its influence on quantum computing research. An analysis of approximately 30,000 research papers on quantum computing revealed that firms are increasingly publishing scientifically impactful research compared to noncorporate entities in this field. Additional analyses of text data from research article abstracts using topic modeling indicated that corporate research is concentrated on prominent topics such as quantum computing for Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence and quantum algorithms, attracting increasing scholarly attention. In contrast, non-corporate research has been relatively dispersed across various topics. Drawing on the Resource-Based View and insights from an interview with a field expert, we theorize that with secured access to unique and rare resources for quantum computing research, corporate researchers are better positioned to experiment and iterate on novel ideas than their noncorporate counterparts. The publication of these research outcomes provides strategic advantages without compromising their appropriability. Our findings have implications for science policymakers and corporate innovation strategists, contributing to the literature on the role of corporate research in scientific progress.

Suggested Citation

  • Ko, Hyunmin & Kwon, Seokbeom, 2025. "Prominence of corporate science in quantum computing research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:212:y:2025:i:c:s0040162524007479
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162524007479
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123949?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Arute & Kunal Arya & Ryan Babbush & Dave Bacon & Joseph C. Bardin & Rami Barends & Rupak Biswas & Sergio Boixo & Fernando G. S. L. Brandao & David A. Buell & Brian Burkett & Yu Chen & Zijun Chen, 2019. "Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor," Nature, Nature, vol. 574(7779), pages 505-510, October.
    2. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Jacob Biamonte & Peter Wittek & Nicola Pancotti & Patrick Rebentrost & Nathan Wiebe & Seth Lloyd, 2017. "Quantum machine learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 549(7671), pages 195-202, September.
    4. Liu, Christopher C. & Stuart, Toby, 2014. "Positions and rewards: The allocation of resources within a science-based entrepreneurial firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1134-1143.
    5. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    6. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2018. "The decline of science in corporate R&D," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 3-32, January.
    7. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    8. Talia Bar, 2006. "Defensive Publications in an R&D Race," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 229-254, March.
    9. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1992. "Ivory Tower Versus Corporate Lab: An Empirical Study of Basic Research and Appropriability," NBER Working Papers 4146, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "Balancing Incentives: The Tension Between Basic and Applied Research," NBER Working Papers 6882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    12. Rosch-Grace, Dominic & Straub, Jeremy, 2022. "Analysis of the likelihood of quantum computing proliferation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Saeed Roshani & Mohammad-Reza Bagherylooieh & Melika Mosleh & Mario Coccia, 2021. "What is the relationship between research funding and citation-based performance? A comparative analysis between critical disciplines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7859-7874, September.
    14. Seokbeom Kwon & Jan Youtie & Alan L Porter, 2021. "Interdisciplinary knowledge combinations and emerging technological topics: Implications for reducing uncertainties in research evaluation [Blade Runner Economics: Will Innovation Lead the Economic," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 127-140.
    15. Gupta, Shivam & Modgil, Sachin & Bhatt, Priyanka C. & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Kamble, Sachin, 2023. "Quantum computing led innovation for achieving a more sustainable Covid-19 healthcare industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    17. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Subhash C. Lonial & Robert E. Carter, 2015. "The Impact of Organizational Orientations on Medium and Small Firm Performance: A Resource‐Based Perspective," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(1), pages 94-113, January.
    19. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    20. Kwon, Seokbeom & Liu, Xiaoyu & Porter, Alan L. & Youtie, Jan, 2019. "Research addressing emerging technological ideas has greater scientific impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    21. Lin, Yini & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2014. "Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 407-413.
    22. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    23. Benedikt Fauseweh, 2024. "Quantum many-body simulations on digital quantum computers: State-of-the-art and future challenges," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    24. Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Andrew Tsou, 2015. "Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1323-1332, July.
    25. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    26. Zhiwei Ye & Yang Lu, 2022. "Quantum science: a review and current research trends," Journal of Management Analytics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 383-402, July.
    27. Cohen, Wesley M. & Goto, Akira & Nagata, Akiya & Nelson, Richard R. & Walsh, John P., 2002. "R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1349-1367, December.
    28. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Zhao, Qifeng & Kong, Dongmin & Luo, Qianfeng, 2024. "Scientific disclosure and corporate misconduct," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Hsu, David H. & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Zhao, Qifeng, 2021. "Rich on paper? Chinese firms’ academic publications, patents, and market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    6. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    7. Kim, Jongwook & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2008. "A Strategic Theory of the Firm as a Nexus of Incomplete Contracts: A Property Rights Approach," Working Papers 08-0108, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    8. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    9. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    10. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    11. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    12. Xiaosheng Ju & Shengjun Jiang & Yuxuan Hu, 2025. "Corporate basic research and technological capabilities: Evidence from China," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 275-304, April.
    13. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    14. Chigu Kim & Chul Lee & Jina Kang, 2018. "Determinants Of Firm’S Innovation-Related External Knowledge Search Strategy: The Role Of Potential Absorptive Capacity And Appropriability Regime," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-33, August.
    15. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    16. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    17. Ruilu Yang & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2023. "Are scientific articles involving corporations associated with higher citations and views? an analysis of the top journals in business research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5659-5685, October.
    18. Rotolo, Daniele & Natalicchio, Angelo & Porter, Alan L. & Schoeneck, David J., 2025. "Emerging technologies, institutional groups and inter-organisational networks: The case of microneedles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    19. Agarwal, Rajshree & Echambadi, Raj & Franco, April M. & Sarkar, M. B., 2002. "Knowledge Transfer through Congenital Learning: Spin-Out Generation, Growth and Survival," Working Papers 02-0101, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    20. Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2012. "Individual preferences, organization, and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 550-570.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:212:y:2025:i:c:s0040162524007479. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.