IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v96y2013i3d10.1007_s11192-013-0974-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Young-Don Cho

    (Sungkyunkwan University
    R&D Policy Team, National Research Foundation of Korea)

  • Hoo-Gon Choi

    (Sungkyunkwan University)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine principal parameters which affect the R&D exploitation and to explore R&D activities in closed science that positively affect those in open science. Based on 486 nanotechnology projects from five national R&D programs in South Korea, canonical correlation analysis is used to analyze the relationships among R&D parameters of inputs, outputs and outcomes and to determine principle parameters. As a result, this study concludes that the principal parameters are publications with high impact, patents, and academic degrees. This study also shows a positive correlation between activities in open science and closed science. The conclusions suggest that research results with high impact value should be endorsed by the Korean government and should try to keep a balance between R&D exploitation in open science and closed science. This study would be used for establishing South Korea’s R&D policy effective for faster commercialization of nanotechnology related research.

Suggested Citation

  • Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:96:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-0974-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-0974-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-013-0974-z
    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/s11192-013-0974-z?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. 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. Angela Hullmann, 2007. "Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 739-758, March.
    3. Arundel, Anthony & Bordoy, Catalina, 2008. "Developing internationally comparable indicators for the commercialization of publicly-funded research," MERIT Working Papers 2008-075, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Murray, Fiona, 2004. "The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 643-659, May.
    5. Martin Meyer, 2006. "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," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. 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.
    7. Jan Bentzen & Valdemar Smith, 2001. "Spillovers in R&D activities: An empirical analysis of the Nordic countries," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 7(2), pages 199-212, May.
    8. Wen-Chi Hung & Ling-Chu Lee & Min-Hua Tsai, 2009. "An international comparison of relative contributions to academic productivity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 703-718, December.
    9. Coccia, Mario, 2008. "Measuring scientific performance of public research units for strategic change," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 183-194.
    10. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    11. Ana M. Ramírez & Esther O. García & J. Antonio Del Río, 2000. "Renormalized Impact Factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(1), pages 3-9, January.
    12. Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
    13. Kocher, Martin G. & Luptacik, Mikulas & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Measuring productivity of research in economics: A cross-country study using DEA," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 314-332, December.
    14. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Liu, John S. & Lu, Wen-Min, 2010. "DEA and ranking with the network-based approach: a case of R&D performance," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 453-464, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Rinia, E. J. & van Leeuwen, Th. N. & van Vuren, H. G. & van Raan, A. F. J., 1998. "Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 95-107, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    20. Ann-Charlotte Fridh & Bo Carlsson, 2002. "special issue: Technology transfer in United States universities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 199-232.
    21. Lockett, Andy & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1043-1057, September.
    22. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    23. Lee, Hakyeon & Park, Yongtae & Choi, Hoogon, 2009. "Comparative evaluation of performance of national R&D programs with heterogeneous objectives: A DEA approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(3), pages 847-855, August.
    24. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1105-1106, October.
    25. Wang, Eric C. & Huang, Weichiao, 2007. "Relative efficiency of R&D activities: A cross-country study accounting for environmental factors in the DEA approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 260-273, March.
    26. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2006. "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 772-789, July.
    27. Fabrizio, Kira R. & Di Minin, Alberto, 2008. "Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 914-931, June.
    28. Narongrit Sombatsompop & Teerasak Markpin, 2005. "Making an equality of ISI impact factors for different subject fields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(7), pages 676-683, May.
    29. Albert Link & Donald Siegel, 2005. "Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 169-181.
    30. Harhoff, Dietmar & Reitzig, Markus, 2004. "Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants--the case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 443-480, April.
    31. Nelson, Andrew J., 2009. "Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 994-1005, July.
    32. Korhonen, Pekka & Tainio, Risto & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2001. "Value efficiency analysis of academic research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 121-132, April.
    33. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    34. Gideon D. Markman & Peter T. Gianiodis & Phillip H. Phan & David B. Balkin, 2004. "Entrepreneurship from the Ivory Tower: Do Incentive Systems Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 29(3_4), pages 353-364, August.
    35. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    36. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    37. 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.
    38. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    39. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    40. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Patent Quality and Research Productivity: Measuring Innovation with Multiple Indicators," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 441-465, April.
    41. Powers, Joshua B. & McDougall, Patricia, 2005. "Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1028-1042, September.
    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. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.

    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. 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.
    2. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    3. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    4. Haeussler, Carolin & Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2011. "Breaking the Ivory Tower: Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences in UK and Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 41-54, February.
    5. Bradley, Samantha R. & Hayter, Christopher S. & Link, Albert N., 2013. "Models and Methods of University Technology Transfer," UNCG Economics Working Papers 13-10, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    6. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    7. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Hsu, David W.L. & Shen, Yung-Chi & Yuan, Benjamin J.C. & Chou, Chiyan James, 2015. "Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 25-39.
    9. Aydemir, Nisa Yazici & Huang, Wan-Ling & Welch, Eric W., 2022. "Late-stage academic entrepreneurship: Explaining why academic scientists collaborate with industry to commercialize their patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    11. Walter, Sascha G. & Schmidt, Arne & Walter, Achim, 2016. "Patenting rationales of academic entrepreneurs in weak and strong organizational regimes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 533-545.
    12. Abreu, Maria & Grinevich, Vadim, 2013. "The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 408-422.
    13. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    14. Anja Schoen & Bruno Pottelsberghe de la Potterie & Joachim Henkel, 2014. "Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 435-453, June.
    15. Yung-Chi Shen, 2017. "Identifying the key barriers and their interrelationships impeding the university technology transfer in Taiwan: a multi-stakeholder perspective," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2865-2884, November.
    16. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Buenstorf, Guido, 2009. "Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 281-292, March.
    18. Son, Hosung & Chung, Yanghon & Hwang, Heeju, 2019. "Do technology entrepreneurship and external relationships always promote technology transfer? Evidence from Korean public research organizations," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 1-15.
    19. 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.
    20. Christopher S. Hayter & Andrew J. Nelson & Stephanie Zayed & Alan C. O’Connor, 2018. "Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: a review, analysis and extension of the literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 1039-1082, August.
    21. Rory O’Shea & Harveen Chugh & Thomas Allen, 2008. "Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 653-666, 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:96:y:2013:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-013-0974-z. 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: 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.