IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v83y2010i1d10.1007_s11192-009-0003-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications

Author

Listed:
  • Poh Kam Wong

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Annette Singh

    () (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Integrating data from three independent data sources––USPTO patenting data, Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education Supplement’s World University Ranking (WUR), we examine the possible link between patenting output and the quantity and quality of scientific publications among 281 leading universities world-wide. We found that patenting by these universities, as measured by patents granted by the USPTO, has grown consistently faster than overall US patenting over 1977–2000, although it has grown more slowly over the last 5 years (2000–2005). Moreover, since the mid-1990s, patenting growth has been faster among universities outside North America than among those within North America. We also found that the patenting output of the universities over 2003–2005 is significantly correlated with the quantity and quality of their scientific publications. However, significant regional variations are found: for universities in North America, both the quantity and quality of scientific publications matter, but for European and Australian/NZ universities, only the quantity of publications matter, while for other universities outside North America and Europe/Australia/NZ, only quality of publications matter. We found similar findings when using EPO patenting data instead of USPTO data. Additionally, for USPTO data only, the degree of internationalization of faculty members is found to reduce patenting performance among North American universities, but to increase that of universities outside North America. Plausible explanations for these empirical observations and implications for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Poh Kam Wong & Annette Singh, 2010. "University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 271-294, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:83:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0003-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-009-0003-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-009-0003-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. Friedman, Joseph & Silberman, Jonathan, 2003. "University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 17-30, January.
    2. Wesley David Sine & Scott Shane & Dante Di Gregorio, 2003. "The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 478-496, April.
    3. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2008. "Incentives and invention in universities," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 403-433, June.
    4. Etzkowitz, Henry & Webster, Andrew & Gebhardt, Christiane & Terra, Branca Regina Cantisano, 2000. "The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 313-330, February.
    5. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    6. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2005. "Market Value and Patent Citations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(1), pages 16-38, Spring.
    8. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    9. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    10. Jeremy Foltz & Bradford Barham & Kwansoo Kim, 2000. "Universities and agricultural biotechnology patent production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 82-95.
    11. Bart Verspagen, 2006. "University Research, Intellectual Property Rights And European Innovation Systems," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(4), pages 607-632, September.
    12. Gualberto Buela-Casal & Olga Gutiérrez-Martínez & María Paz Bermúdez-Sánchez & Oscar Vadillo-Muñoz, 2007. "Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(3), pages 349-365, June.
    13. Kwansoo Kim, 2007. "Synergies or Trade-Offs in University Life Sciences Research," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 353-367.
    14. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2002. "Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 399-418, March.
    15. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    16. Martin Meyer, 2003. "Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 17-27, April.
    17. Baldini, Nicola, 2006. "The patenting universities: Problems and perils," MPRA Paper 853, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Răzvan V. Florian, 2007. "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(1), pages 25-32, July.
    19. Di Gregorio, Dante & Shane, Scott, 2003. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 209-227, February.
    20. Trajtenberg, Manuel, 2001. "Innovation in Israel 1968-1997: a comparative analysis using patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 363-389, March.
    21. Owen-Smith, Jason, 2003. "From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1081-1104, June.
    22. O'Shea, Rory P. & Allen, Thomas J. & Chevalier, Arnaud & Roche, Frank, 2005. "Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 994-1009, September.
    23. Shane, Scott, 2004. "Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 127-151, January.
    24. Noyons, E. C. M. & van Raan, A. F. J. & Grupp, H. & Schmoch, U., 1994. "Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 443-457, July.
    25. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Fragiskos Archontakis & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros, 2007. "In which regions do universities patent and publish more?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 251-266, February.
    26. Landry, Rejean & Amara, Nabil & Rherrad, Imad, 2006. "Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1599-1615, December.
    27. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    28. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ampere A. Tseng & Miroslav Raudensky, 2014. "Assessments of technology transfer activities of US universities and associated impact of Bayh–Dole Act," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1851-1869, December.
    2. Yongrae Cho & Wonjoon Kim, 2014. "Technology–industry networks in technology commercialization: evidence from Korean university patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1785-1810, March.
    3. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2015. "The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 753-787, January.
    4. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano, 2012. "Publication and patent analysis of European researchers in the field of production technology and manufacturing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(1), pages 89-100, October.
    5. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2013. "A reply to Etzkowitz’ comments to Leydesdorff and Martin (2010): technology transfer and the end of the Bayh–Dole effect," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 927-934, December.

    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:83:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-009-0003-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.