IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Star scientists and their positions in the Canadian biotechnology network


  • Andrea Schiffauerova
  • Catherine Beaudry


This paper identifies the prominent inventors (star scientists) in the Canadian biotechnology co-inventorship network by taking into consideration either only patent quantity or both patent quantity and quality. The paper studies the positions of these stars in the network structure and results show that inventors with a higher number of patents assume more central positions in the network: they have more collaborators, enjoy better access to information and also have greater control over knowledge flows in the network. Nevertheless, their network positions do not have higher levels of local cliquishness, suggesting that a clustered local neighbourhood may not have any positive impact on a scientist's innovative productivity. We also find that the majority of the stars play a knowledge gatekeeping role - nurturing clusters with knowledge originating outside. Finally, we examine and discuss the network dynamics and the role of these stars in the information transmission efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Schiffauerova & Catherine Beaudry, 2011. "Star scientists and their positions in the Canadian biotechnology network," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 343-366.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ecinnt:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:343-366 DOI: 10.1080/10438591003696886

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    2. Kortum, Samuel & Lerner, Josh, 1998. "Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting?," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 247-304, June.
    3. Jaggia, Sanjiv & Thosar, Satish, 1995. "Contested Tender Offers: An Estimate of the Hazard Function," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(1), pages 113-119, January.
    4. Tremblay, Victor J & Tremblay, Carol Horton, 1988. "The Determinants of Horizontal Acquisitions: Evidence from the U.S. Brewing Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 21-45, September.
    5. Gregory Werden & Luke Froeb & Timothy Tardiff, 1996. "The Use of the Logit Model in Applied Industrial Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 83-105.
    6. Waldfogel, Joel, 1995. "The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 229-260, April.
    7. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    8. Theodore Eisenberg & Henry S. Farber, 1996. "The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection and Resolution," Working Papers 743, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    9. Merges, Robert P. & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "On limiting or encouraging rivalry in technical progress: The effect of patent scope decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Paul Klemperer, 1990. "How Broad Should the Scope of Patent Protection Be?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 113-130, Spring.
    11. Francesca Cornelli & Mark Schankerman, 1999. "Patent Renewals and R&D Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 197-213, Summer.
    12. Paul Geroski & Steve Machin & John Van Reenen, 1993. "The Profitability of Innovating Firms," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 24(2), pages 198-211, Summer.
    13. Bacon, Frank W. & Shin, Tai S. & Murphy, Neil B., 1994. "Factors motivating mergers: The case of rural electric cooperatives," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 129-134, May.
    14. Richard Gilbert & Carl Shapiro, 1990. "Optimal Patent Length and Breadth," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 106-112, Spring.
    15. Pakes, Ariel, 1985. "On Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 390-409, April.
    16. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    17. Joshua Lerner, 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 319-333, Summer.
    18. Jean Olson Lanjouw, 1994. "Economic Consequences of a Changing Litigation Environment: The Case of Patents," NBER Working Papers 4835, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Dickerson, Andrew P & Gibson, Heather D & Tsakalotos, Euclid, 1998. "Takeover Risk and Dividend Strategy: A Study of UK Firms," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 281-300, September.
    20. Ugur Tony Sinay, 1998. "Pre- and Post-Merger Investigation of Hospital Mergers," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 24(1), pages 83-97, Winter.
    21. Choi, Jay Pil, 1998. "Patent Litigation as an Information-Transmission Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1249-1263, December.
    22. Michael J. Meurer, 1989. "The Settlement of Patent Litigation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 77-91, Spring.
    23. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization,in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908 Elsevier.
    24. Mark Schankerman, 1998. "How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 29(1), pages 77-107, Spring.
    25. Urs Schweizer, 1989. "Litigation and Settlement under Two-Sided Incomplete Information," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 163-177.
    26. Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Cristiano Antonelli & Chiara Franzoni & Aldo Geuna, 2011. "The Contributions of Economics to a Science of Science Policy," Chapters,in: Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 1 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Broekel, Tom & Fornahl, Dirk & Morrison, Andrea, 2015. "Another cluster premium: Innovation subsidies and R&D collaboration networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1431-1444.
    3. repec:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2350-x is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    5. Catherine Beaudry & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2011. "Is Canadian intellectual property leaving Canada? A study of nanotechnology patenting," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 665-679, December.


    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:taf:ecinnt:v:20:y:2011:i:4:p:343-366. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.