IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0346227.html

The field factor: Industry publishing contribution and novelty in science

Author

Listed:
  • Anubha Shokhand
  • Nilam Kaushik
  • Satyam Mukherjee

Abstract

Firms frequently publish scientific articles as part of their R&D initiatives, motivated by commercial objectives. However, the extent of industry involvement in publishing varies across different scientific fields and can have implications for research within those fields. Novelty in science is associated with scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this paper, we examine a field-level antecedent of novelty—the extent of industry publishing contribution to a field—and its association with two key aspects of recombinant novelty of publications: the occurrence of a novel recombination (novelty occurrence), and the degree of novelty, captured through novelty breadth, reflecting the scope of novel integration of knowledge elements, and novelty distance, reflecting the extremity of conceptual divergence among novel knowledge recombinations. Drawing on a longitudinal dataset of 11.1 million publications across 1639 STEM fields from 2000 to 2014, we find that greater industry publishing contribution within a scientific field is associated with higher odds of novelty occurrence and greater novelty breadth, but lower novelty distance. Notably, university is an important driver of our results across the three dimensions of novelty highlighting the importance of industry publishing contribution in shaping the novelty of entire fields. In addition, we find that top-ranked research institutions appear better able to manage the trade-off between novelty distance and other forms of novelty as industry publishing contribution increases. Our findings emphasize the need for policymakers in encouraging and preserving more exploratory forms of novelty in fields with substantial industry publishing, where such exploration is particularly valuable.

Suggested Citation

  • Anubha Shokhand & Nilam Kaushik & Satyam Mukherjee, 2026. "The field factor: Industry publishing contribution and novelty in science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0346227
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0346227
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0346227&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0346227?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:osf:socarx:2t46f_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Erin Leahey & Jina Lee & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?," American Sociological Review, , vol. 88(3), pages 562-597, June.
    3. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    4. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. J. Klinger & J. Mateos-Garcia & K. Stathoulopoulos, 2018. "Deep learning, deep change? Mapping the development of the Artificial Intelligence General Purpose Technology," Papers 1808.06355, arXiv.org.
    6. Boardman, P. Craig & Corley, Elizabeth A., 2008. "University research centers and the composition of research collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 900-913, June.
    7. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    8. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Foster, Jacob G. & Shi, Feng & Evans, James, 2021. "Surprise! Measuring Novelty as Expectation Violation," SocArXiv 2t46f, Center for Open Science.
    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. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "Firms’ influence on the evolution of published knowledge when a science-related technology emerges: the case of artificial intelligence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 209-247, January.
    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. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    5. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    6. Ziyan Zhang & Junyan Zhang & Pushi Wang, 2024. "Measurement of disruptive innovation and its validity based on improved disruption index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6477-6531, November.
    7. Baruffaldi, Stefano & Poege, Felix, 2020. "A Firm Scientific Community: Industry Participation and Knowledge Diffusion," IZA Discussion Papers 13419, IZA Network @ LISER.
    8. Stefano Baruffaldi & Felix Poege, 2025. "Like Stars: How Firms Learn at Scientific Conferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(3), pages 2056-2078, March.
    9. Chaewon Park & Sung Joo Bae, 2026. "Partner diversity and post-project effort in achieving scientific novelty and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(3), pages 1677-1705, March.
    10. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Catalina Martínez & Sarah Parlane, 2018. "On the firms’ decision to hire academic scientists," Working Papers 1801, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    13. Chen, Xi & Mao, Jin & Ma, Yaxue & Li, Gang, 2024. "The knowledge linkage between science and technology influences corporate technological innovation: Evidence from scientific publications and patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    15. Chul Lee & Gunno Park & Jina Kang, 2018. "The impact of convergence between science and technology on innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 522-544, April.
    16. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Philippe Mongeon & Kyle Siler & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2018. "Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.
    17. 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).
    18. Anna Giunta & Filippo M. Pericoli & Eleonora Pierucci, 2016. "University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 818-840, August.
    19. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    20. Rodica Pamfilie & Smaranda Giusca & Robert Bumbac, 2014. "Academic research – a catalyst for the innovation process within companies in Romania," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 16(37), pages 759-759, August.

    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:plo:pone00:0346227. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.