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.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2002. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Giuri, Paola & Mariani, Myriam & Brusoni, Stefano & Crespi, Gustavo & Francoz, Dominique & Gambardella, Alfonso & Garcia-Fontes, Walter & Geuna, Aldo & Gonzales, Raul & Harhoff, Dietmar & Hoisl, Karin, 2007. "Inventors and invention processes in Europe: Results from the PatVal-EU survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1107-1127, October.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.

    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.

    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.