Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology

Scientometrics

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 545-560

  Meyer, Martin ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746440986     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-006-0129-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. AZAGRA-CARO, J. M., LLERENA, P. (2003), Types of contractual funding and university patents: from analysis to a case study, paper prepared for Knowledge and Economic and Social Change: New Challenges to Innovation Studies Conference, Manchester, CRIC, April 7-9. Cited after GEUNA & NESTA (2006).
2. BASSECOULARD, E., ZITT, M. (2004), Patents and publications: the lexical connection. In: MOED et al. (2004), pp. 665-694.
3. BIBEXCEL (2005), A Toolbox for Bibliometricians, Olle Persson. Inforsk, Umea University.
4. BLUMENTHAL, D., CAMPBELL, E. G., CAUSING, N.A., LOUTS, K. S. (1996), Participation of life science faculty in research relationships with industry, New England Journal of Medicine, 335 (23) : 1734-1739.
5. BRUSONI, S., PRENCIPE, A., PAVITT, K. (2001), Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4): 597-621.
6. BUDWORTH, D. W. (1996), Overview of Activities on Nanotechnology and Related Technology. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
7. CLARK, B. R. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon.
8. ETZKOWITZ, H. (1983), Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21 (2-3) : 198-233.
9. ETZKOWITZ, H., LEYDESDORFF, L. (1997), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Pinter.
10. GEISLER, E. (2000), The Metrics of Science and Technology, Wesport CT and London: Quorum.
11. GEUNA, A., NESTA, L. (2006), University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Forthcoming in Research Policy.
12. GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMANN, S., SCOTT, P., TROW, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge:The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
13. GLÄNZEL, W., MEYER, M., DUPLESSIS, M., THIJS, B., MAGERMANN, B., SCHLEMMER, B., DEBACKERE, K., VEUGELERS, R. (2003), Nanotechnology : Analysis of an Emerging Domain of Scientific and Technological Endeavour. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
14. GODIN, B. (1998), Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28 : 465-483. Cited after GEUNA & NESTA (2006).
15. GRILICHES, Z. (1990), Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey, Journal of Economic Literature, 28: 1661-1707.
16. GRUFF, H. (Ed.) (1992), Dynamics of Science-Based Innovation. Berlin: Springer.
17. GULBRANDSEN, M., SMEBY, I. C. (2002), The external orientation of university researchers: implications for academic performance and management. Paper presented at the 4th Triple Helix Conference, 6-9 November 2002, Copenhagen.
18. HULLMANN, A., MEYER, M. (2003), Publications and patents in nanotechnology. An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58 (3) : 507-527.
19. LEYDESDORFF, L., MEYER, M. (2003), The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: a model for innovation in the 'knowledge-based' economy. Introduction to the Triple Helix special issue of Scientometrics, 58 (2) : 191-203.
20. MALSCH, I. (1997), Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-areas. Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
21. MALSCH, I. (1999), Nanotechnology in Europe: scientific and organizational dynamics. Nanotechnology, 10(1): 1-7.
22. MEYER, M. (2002), Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54 (2) : 193-212.
23. MEYER, M. (2003), Are academic patents an indicator of useful university research? Research Evaluation, 12(1): 17-27.
24. MEYER, M., PERSSON, O., POWER, Y., with NANOTECHNOLOGY EXPERT GROUP and EUROTECH DATA (2002), Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies. Preparatory study for the European Commission, DG Research.
25. MEYER, M. (2005), Knowledge integrators or weak links? HUT-ISIB, Working Paper Series, 2005/1, http://www.tuta.hut.fi/units/lsib/publications/ working_papers/meyer_wp_2005_1.pdf
26. MEYER, M. S. (2001), Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics, 51 (1) : 163-183.
27. MOED, H. F., GLÄNZEL, W., SCHMOCH, U. (Eds) (2004), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S&T Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
28. MURRAY, F., STERN, S. (2004), Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis. SPRU Conference in Honor of Keith Pavitt, Brighton.
29. NOYONS, E. C. M., BUTER, R. K., VAN RAAN, A. F. J., SCHMOCH, U., HEINZE, T., HINZE, S., RANGNOW, R. (2004), Mapping Excellence in Science and Technology across Europe: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, the Netherlands.
30. NOYONS, E. C. M., VAN RAAN, A. F. J., GRUPP, H., SCHMOCH, U. (1994), Exploring the science and technology interface - inventor author relations in laser medicine research, Research Policy, 23 (4) : 443-457.
31. PAVITT, K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13 (6) : 343-373.
32. RANGA, L. M., DEBACKERE, K., VON TUNZELMANN, N. (2003), Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58 (2) : 301-320.
33. SCHMOCH, U. (2004), The technological output of scientific institutions. In: MOED et al. (2004) pp. 717-731.
34. SCHUMMER, J. (2004), Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59 (3) : 425-465.
35. ZITT, M., RAMANANA-RAHARY, S., BASSECOULARD, E. (2004), Relativity of citation performance and excellence measures: from cross-field to cross-scale effects of field-normalisation. Scientometrics, 63 (2): 373-401.
36. ZUCKER, L. G., DARBY, M. R. (1996), Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93 : 12709-12716.
37. VAN LOOY, B., RANGA, M., CALLAERT, J., DEBACKERE, K., ZIMMERMANN, E. (2004), Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33 (3) : 425-441.