IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/uncgec/2020_006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Invention Disclosures and the Slowdown of Scientific Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • Albert Link

    (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics)

  • John Scott

    (Dartmouth College)

Abstract

Invention disclosures are one measure of new scientific knowledge that represents and predicts the future scientific research output of a U.S. federal laboratory. In this paper, we document a negative shift in the production function for new scientific knowledge as measured by invention disclosures at one federal laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, over the first 16 years of the new millennium. We find a negative shift of the production function for new scientific knowledge, and that shift might reflect the coincidence of the ICT revolution that enabled fast science, and the evaluation of research with uncritical use of citation counts that created incentives to focus on incremental research in crowded research topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Albert Link & John Scott, 2020. "Invention Disclosures and the Slowdown of Scientific Knowledge," UNCG Economics Working Papers 20-6, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:uncgec:2020_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://bryan.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2020-06-Invention-Disclosures-and-the-Slowdown.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2011. "Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199729685, Decembrie.
    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. David P. Leech & John T. Scott, 2022. "Foreign patents for the technology transfer from laboratories of U.S. federal agencies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 937-978, August.

    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. Albert Link & Brent Rowe & Dallas Wood, 2011. "Information About Information: Public Investments in Information Retrieval Research," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 2(2), pages 192-200, June.
    2. Albert N. Link & Cristiano Antonelli, 2013. "Building the Economics of Knowledge: A Roadmap," UNCG Economics Working Papers 13-21, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics.
    3. Heijs, Joost, 2003. "Freerider behaviour and the public finance of R&D activities in enterprises: the case of the Spanish low interest credits for R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 445-461, March.
    4. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    5. Teimuraz Gogokhia & George Berulava, 2021. "Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 221-245, June.
    6. Emanuela Marrocu & Raffaele Paci & Stefano Usai, 2013. "Productivity Growth In The Old And New Europe: The Role Of Agglomeration Externalities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 418-442, August.
    7. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan, 2013. "Do firms face a trade-off between the quantity and the quality of their inventions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1072-1079.
    8. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    9. Alan C. O'Connor & Albert N. Link & Brandon M. Downs & Laura M. Hillier, 2015. "The impact of public investment in medical imaging technology: an interagency collaboration in evaluation," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 510-531, July.
    10. Ioannis Giotopoulos & Alexander S. Kritikos & Aggelos Tsakanikas, 2023. "A lasting crisis affects R&D decisions of smaller firms: the Greek experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1161-1175, August.
    11. Mustafa Gomleksiz, 2023. "International Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth: New Evidence from High-Tech Imports and R&D Cooperation," Istanbul Journal of Economics-Istanbul Iktisat Dergisi, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 73(73-1), pages 281-305, June.
    12. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    13. Christoph Meister & Bart Verspagen & Guntram B. Wolff, 2006. "European Productivity Gaps: Is R&D the Solution?," Chapters, in: Susanne Mundschenk & Michael H. Stierle & Ulrike Stierle-von Schütz & Iulia Traistaru-Siedschlag (ed.), Competitiveness and Growth in Europe, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Xianpu Xu & Tieshan Zhao, 2024. "Towards Green Development: Exploring the Impact of Housing Price Bubbles on Regional Green Innovation Efficiency Based on Chinese Provincial Panel Data Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-23, November.
    15. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Wu, Mingran & Zhao, Min & Wu, Zhaodan, 2019. "Evaluation of development level and economic contribution ratio of science and technology innovation in eastern China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    17. Federico Caviggioli & Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato & Elisa Ughetto, 2023. "Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 216-239, February.
    18. Pedro de Faria & Francisco Lima, 2012. "Interdependence and spillovers: is firm performance affected by others’ innovation activities?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(36), pages 4765-4775, December.
    19. Bedford, Anna & Ma, Le & Ma, Nelson & Vojvoda, Kristina, 2022. "Australian innovation: Patent database construction and first evidence," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    20. Emanuele Giovannetti & Claudio Piga, 2023. "The multifaceted nature of cooperation for innovation, ICT and innovative outcomes: evidence from UK Microdata," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(3), pages 639-666, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Invention disclosures; Federal laboratory; Scientific knowledge; Knowledge production function; ICT;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O35 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Social Innovation
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ris:uncgec:2020_006. 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: Albert Link (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edncgus.html .

    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.