Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems

Scientometrics

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 145-161

  Meyer, Martin ^a,b,c,d   Du Plessis, Mariette ^a   Tukeva, Tania ^b,c   Utecht, Jann Timour ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b SYO   (Finland)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21244466431     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-005-0207-1     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. ACOSTA, M., D. CORONADO (2003), Science-technology flows in Spanish regions - An analysis of scientific citations in patents, Research Policy, 32 (10) : 1783-1803.
2. CARD, J. M. A., I. F. DE LUCIO, A. G. GRACIA (2003), University patents: output and input indicators ... of what? Research Evaluation, 12 (1): 5-16.
3. CARPENTER, M. P., F. NARIN (1983), Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence, World Patent Information, 5 (3) : 180-185.
4. CLARK, B. R. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities, Pergamon, Oxford.
5. DEBACKERE, K. (2000), Managing academic R & D as a business at K.U. Leuven-context, structure and process, R&D Management, 30 (4) : 323-328.
6. DU PLESSIS, M. (2003), Academic Patents in Flanders. Presentation, KU Leuven.
7. ETZKOWITZ, H. (2003), Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Social Science Information, 42 (3) : 293-337.
8. ETZKOWITZ, H., A. WEBSTER, P. HEALEY (Eds) (1998), Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.
9. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2003), Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators for the European Research Area (STI-ERA).
10. HENDERSON, R., A. JAFFE, M. TRAJTENBERG (1998), Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988, Review of Economics and Statistics, 13 : 119-127.
11. HUBER, J. C. (1998), Invention and inventivity as a special kind of creativity, with implications for general creativity, Journal of Creative Behavior, 32 (1) : 58-72.
12. KUTINLAHTI, P. (2003), SMEs and the New Role of Academic Research. The Country Report: Finland. VTT Technology Studies, Espoo.
13. MEYER, M. (2002a), Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems, Scientometrics, 54 (2) : 193-212.
14. MEYER, M. (2002b), Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems - An informetric perspective on future research on science-based innovation, Economic Systems Research, 14 (4) : 323-343.
15. MEYER, M. (2003), Academic patents as an indicator of useful research? A new approach to measure academic inventiveness? Research Evaluation, 12(1) : 17-27.
16. MEYER, M., T. GOLOUBEVA, J. T. UTECHT (2003a), Free patent information as a resource for policy analysis, World Patent Information, 25 (3) : 223-231.
17. MEYER, M., T. SINILÄINEN, J. T. UTECHT (2003b), Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators - a study of university-related patents and a survey of inventors, Scientometrics, 58 (2) : 321-350.
18. MEYER-KRAHMER, F., U. SCHMOCH (1998), Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields, Research Policy, 27 (8) : 835-851.
19. MOWERY, D. C., R. R. NELSON, B. N. SAMPAT, A. A. ZIEDONIS (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, 30 : 99-119.
20. OECD (2003), Turning Science into Business: Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations. OECD, Paris.
21. PAVITT, K. (1982), R&D, patenting and innovative activities - a statistical exploration, Research Policy, 11 (1): 33-51.
22. PAVITT, K. (1998), Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities? Research Evaluation, 7 (2) : 105-111.
23. ROBERTS, E. (1991), Entrepreneurs in High Technology. New York: OUP.
24. SALTER, A., P. D'ESTE, B. MARTIN, A. GEUNA, A. SCOTT, K. PAVITT, P. PATEL, P. NIGHTINGALE (2001), Talent, not Technology: Publicly Funded Research and Innovation in the UK. London, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principles and the Higher Education Funding Council of England.
25. SARAGOSSI, S., B. VAN POTTELSBERGHE (2003), What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (1) : 47-51.
26. SCHILD, I. (1999), A Regional Patent Study to Investigate Inventive Activity in East Gothia. Tema-T Working Paper No. 207, April 1999, Linköping University.
27. SELLENTHIN, M. O. (2003), Who Should Own University Research? An Exploratory Study of the Impact of Patent Rights Regimes in Sweden and Germany on the Incentives to Patent Research Results. ITPS, Swedish Institute For Growth Policy Studies, Östersund, Report # A2004:013.
28. SHANE, S. A. (1992), Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 7 (1): 29-46.
29. SMITH, K., A. EKLAND, E. IVERSEN, A. KALOUDIS, P. PATEL, R. NARULA (1998), Understanding Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators, IDEA-Report 5/1998, Oslo: STEP Group.
30. TIJSSEN, R. J. W. (2002), Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors, Research Policy, 31 (4) : 509-526.
31. VAN LOOY, B., J. CALLAERT, K. DEBACKERE, A. VERBEEK (2003), Patent related indicators for assessing knowledge-generating institutions: toward a contextualised approach, Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (1) : 53-61.
32. VERBEEK, A., DEBACKERE, K., LUWEL, M., ANDRIES, P., ZIMMERMANN, E., DELEUS, F. (2002), Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes, Scientometrics, 54 (3) : 399-420.