The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patents and the science base of technologies

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 55, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 991-1001

  Leydesdorff, Loet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; INNOVATION INDEX; INTERNET DOMAINS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATABASE SYSTEMS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

EDUCATION;

EID: 4444302955     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20045     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirement for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550-560.
2. Bergman, M.K. (2001). The deep web: Surfacing hidden value. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 7(1). Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.press. umich.edu/jep/07-01/bergman.html
3. Bhattacharya, S., Kretschmer, H., & Meyer, M. (2003). Characterizing intellectual spaces between science and technology. Scientometrics, 58(2), 369-390.
4. Black, G.R. (2002). Exploring inventions and ideas: Keyword patent searching - Online. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.keypatent.net/
5. Burt, R.S. (1982). Toward a structural theory of action. New York: Academic Press.
6. David, P.A., & Foray, D. (2002). An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 9-23.
7. Glänzel, W., & Meyer, M. (in press). Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 415-428.
8. Granstrand, O. (1999). The economics and management of intellectual property: Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
9. Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (1999). Patent statistics in the age of globalisation: New legal procedures, new analytical methods, new economic interpretation. Research Policy, 28, 377-396.
10. Hamers, L., Hemeryck, Y., Herweyers, G., Janssen, M., Keters, H., Rousseau, R., et al. (1989). Similarity measures in scientometric research: The Jaccard index versus Salton's cosine formula. Information Processing & Management, 25(3), 315-318.
11. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119-127.
12. Jaffe, A.B., &. Trajtenberg, M. (2002). Patents, citations, and innovations: A window on the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
13. Kaghan, W.N., & Barnett, G.B. (1997). The desktop model of innovation in digital media. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff (Eds.), Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations (pp. 71-81). London: Cassell Academic.
14. Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7-15.
15. Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P. (2002, August). The boomerang effect: Retrieving scientific documents via the network of references and citations. Paper presented at SIGIR'02, Tampere, Finland.
16. Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.upublish. com/books/leydesdorff- sci.htm
17. Leydesdorff, L. (2001). Indicators of innovation in a knowledge-based economy. Cybermetrics, 5(1), Paper 2. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v5i1p2.html
18. Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university-industry- government relations: An indicator of the triple helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58(2), 445-467.
19. Leydesdorff, L. (2003, October). Meaning and translation at the interfaces of science: Mapping the case of 'stem-cell research.' Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), Altanta, GA.
20. Leydesdorff, L., & Zaal, R. (1988). Co-words and citations. Relations between document sets and environments. In L. Egghe & R. Rousseau (Eds.), Informetrics 87/88 (pp. 105-119). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university-industry-government relations: Introduction to the topical issue. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191-203.
22. Leydesdorff, L., & Scharnhorst, A. (2003). Measuring the knowledge base: A program of innovation studies. Report to the "Förderinitiative Science Policy Studies" of the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Retrieved April 7, 2004, from http://www.sciencepolicystudies. de/Leydesdorff&Scharnhorst.pdf
23. Link, A.N., Scott, J.T., & Siegel, D.S. (2003). The economics of intellectual property at universities: An overview of the special issue. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1217-1225.
24. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R.J.W., Persson, O., & Silvertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36.
25. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1-12.
26. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy 29, 409-434.
27. Michelet, B. (1988). L'Analyse des associations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris VII, Paris.
28. Mowery, D., & Shane, S. (2002). Special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v-ix.
29. Narin, F., Hamilton, K.S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing link between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330.
30. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369-381.
31. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1988). Technology indicators based on patents and patent citations. In A.F.J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 465-507). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
32. Narin, F., & Olivastro, D. (1992). Status report: Linkage between technology and science. Research Policy, 21, 237-249.
33. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.). 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
34. Noble, D. (1977). America by design. New York: Knopf.
35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1988). Biotechnology and the changing role of government. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Eurostat. (1997). Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, "Oslo Manual." Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
37. Ortega Priego, J.L. (2003). A vector space model as a methodological approach to the triple helix dimensionality: A comparative study of biology and biomedicine centres of two European national councils from a webometric view. Scientometrics, 58(2), 429-443.
38. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W.W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24-43.
39. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a theory and a taxonomy. Research Policy, 13, 343-373.
40. Reddy, C., Wouters, P., & Aguillo, I. (2003). Invisible Internet in parts of the EU research area. Deliverable of Project WISER to the European Commission. Amsterdam/Madrid: Nerdi, CINDOC.
41. Salton, O., & McGill, M.J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. Auckland: McGraw-Hill.
42. Sampat, B.N., Mowery, D.C., & Sidonis, A.A. (2003). Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh-Dole Act: A re-examination. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1371-1390.
43. Sherman, C., & Price, G. (2001). The invisible web. Medford, NJ: Cyberage Books.
44. Tijssen, R., De Leeuw, J., & Van Raan, A.F.J. (1987). Quasi-correspondence analysis on square scientometric transaction matrices. Scientometrics, 11, 347-361.
45. Wagner, C.S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2003). Mapping global science using international co-authorships: A Comparison of 1990 and 2000. In J. Guohua, R. Rousseau, & Y. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Interna tional Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 330-340). Dalian: Dalian University of Technology Press.
46. Wagner, C.S., & Leydesorff, L. (2004). Mapping global science using international co-authorships: A comparison of 1990 and 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalization. Manuscript submitted for publication.
47. White, H.D. (2003). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson's r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1250-1259.
48. Whitley, R.D. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.