The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology

Journal of Informetrics

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 338-350

  Wang, Gangbo ^a   Guan, Jiancheng ^b  

^a BEIHANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b FUDAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Academic inventors; Nanotechnology; Patent publication tradeoff; University industry relations

Indexed keywords

EID: 77957817335     PISSN: 17511577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Agrawal A., Henderson R. Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 2002, 48(1):44-60.
2. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., Stuart, T. (2006). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research. NBER Working Paper 11917.
3. Azoulay P., Ding W., Stuart T. The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2007, 63(4):599-623.
4. Bai C.L. Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science 2005, 309(5731):61-63.
5. Baldini N. Negative effects of university patenting: Myths and grounded evidence. Scientometrics 2008, 75(2):289-311.
6. Bassecoulard E., Zitt M. Patents and publications: The lexical connection. Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems 2004, 665-694. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
7. Bordons M., Fernandez M.T., Gomez I. Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics 2002, 53(2):195-206.
8. Boyack K.W., Klavans R. Measuring science-technology interaction using rare inventor-author names. Journal of Informetrics 2008, 2(3):173-182.
9. Braun T., Schubert A., Zsindely S. Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 1997, 38(2):321-325.
10. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Montobbio F. The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2007, 16(2):101-118.
11. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Montobbio F. University patenting and scientific productivity: A quantitative study of Italian academic inventors. European Management Review 2008, 5(2):91-109.
12. Buenstorf G. Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Research Policy 2009, 38(2):281-292.
13. Calderini M., Franzoni C., Vezzulli A. If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy 2007, 36(3):303-319.
14. Carayol N., Matt M. Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy 2004, 33(8):1081-1102.
15. Chang Y.C., Yang P.Y. The impacts of academic patenting and licensing on knowledge production and diffusion: A test of the anti-commons effect in Taiwan. R&D Management 2008, 38(3):321-334.
16. Czarnitzki D., Glänzel W., Hussinger K. Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy 2009, 38(1):26-34.
17. Fabrizio K.R., Di Minin A. Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy 2008, 37(5):914-931.
18. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science 1972, 178(4060):471-479.
19. Garfield E., Sher I.H. New factors in the evaluation of scientific literature through citation indexing. American Documentation 1963, 14(4):195-201.
20. Geuna A., Nesta L.J.J. University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy 2006, 35(6):790-807.
21. Glänzel W., Meyer M. Patents cited in the scientific literature: An exploratory study of 'reverse' citation relations in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics 2003, 58(2):415-428.
22. Guan J.C., Ma N. China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience 'giants'. Research Policy 2007, 36(6):880-886.
23. Hassan M. Small things and big changes in the developing world. Science 2005, 309(5731):65-66.
24. Hu M.C., Mathews J.A. China's national innovative capacity. Research Policy 2008, 37(9):1465-1479.
25. Hausman J., Hall B., Griliches Z. Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship. Econometrica 1984, 52:909-938.
26. Hullmann A., Meyer M. Publications and patents in nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 2003, 58(3):507-527.
27. Jin B.H., Rousseau R., Sun X.X. Key Labs and Open Labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Their role in the national and international scientific arena. Scientometrics 2006, 67(1):3-14.
28. Klitkou, A., Gulbrandsen, M., The relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Norway. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0050-x.
29. Kostoff R.N. Citation analysis cross-field normalization: A paradigm. Scientometrics 1997, 39(3):225-230.
30. Kostoff R.N., Barth R.B., Lau C.G.Y. Quality vs. quantity of publications in nanotechnology field from the People's Republic of China. Chinese Science Bulletin 2008, 53(8):1272-1280.
31. Leydesdorff L., Zhou P. Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics 2007, 70(3):693-713.
32. Li X., Lin Y., Chen H., Roco M.C. Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976-2004). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2007, 9(6):977-1002.
33. Liu L.W., Zhang L.D. Nanotechnology in China-Now and in the Future. Nanotechnology Law & Business 2005, 2(4):397-403.
34. Merton R.K. The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations 1968, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. R.K. Merton (Ed.).
35. Meyer M. Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Scientometrics 2006, 68(3):545-560.
36. Meyer M. Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy 2006, 35(10):1646-1662.
37. Ministry of Education, 1999. The Regulation Regarding the Protection and Management of Intellectual Properties in Higher Education Institutions. Act 3, No. 8120.
38. Moed H.F. Measuring China's research performance using the Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 2002, 53(3):281-296.
39. Mogoutov A., Kahane B. Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy 2007, 36(6):893-903.
40. Mowery D.C., Ziedonis A.A. Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole act in the United States. Research Policy 2002, 31(3):399-418.
41. Murray F., Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2007, 63(4):648-687.
42. Narin F., Noma E. Is technology becoming science?. Scientometrics 1985, 7(3-6):369-381.
43. Noyons E.C.M., Van Raan A.F.J., Grupp H., Schmoch U. Exploring the science and technology interface-inventor author relations in laser medicine research. Research Policy 1994, 23(4):443-457.
44. Owen-Smith J., Powell W.W. To patent or not: faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 2001, 26(1-2):99-114.
45. PCAST The national nanotechnology initiative at 5 years 2005, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Washington, DC, Executive Office of the President.
46. Porter A.L., Youtie J., Shapira P., Schoeneck D.J. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2008, 10(5):715-728.
47. Schmoch U. Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics 1997, 38(1):103-116.
48. Schummer J. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 2004, 59(3):425-465.
49. Van Looy B., Callaert J., Debackere K. Publication and patent behaviour of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?. Research Policy 2006, 35(4):596-609.
50. Verbeek A., Debackere K., Luwel M., Andries P., Zimmermann E., Deleus F. Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics 2002, 54(3):399-420.
51. Wooldridge J.M. Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 1999, 90(1):77-97.
52. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data 2002, MIT Press, Cambridge.
53. Wu, W. P., Managing and incentivizing research commercialization in Chinese Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-009r-r9116-4.
54. Xue, L., 2006. Universities in China's national innovation system. Presented at the Second International Colloquium on Research and Higher Education Policy, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 29 November-1st December 2006.
55. Youtie J., Shapira P., Porter A.L. Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2008, 10(6):981-986.
56. Zhou P., Leydesdorff L. The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy 2006, 35(1):83-104.
57. Zitt M., Bassecoulard E. Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing & Management 2006, 42(6):1513-1531.