On material transfer agreements and visibility of researchers in biotechnology

Proceedings of ISSI 2007 - 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 659-671

  Rodriguez, Victor ^a   Janssens, Frizo ^a   Debackere, Koenraad ^a   De Moor, Bart ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; H index; Material transfer agreement; Research material; Scientific reputation

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; INFORMATION SCIENCE; VISIBILITY;

BIBLIOMETRIC; COAUTHORSHIP; H INDICES; MATERIAL TRANSFERS; SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION;

RESEARCH;

EID: 84873697003     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (52)

1. Aksnes, D., 2003. Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation 12: 159-170.
2. Aksnes, D., and G. Siversten, 2004. The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics 59: 213-224.
3. Allison, P., J. Long, and T. Krauze, 1982. Cumulative advantage and inequality in science. American Sociological Review 47: 615-625.
4. Avery, R., 1960. Enculturation in industrial research. Transactions on Engineering Management 7: 20-24.
5. Bailyn, L., 1985. Autonomy in the industrial R&D lab. Human Resource Management 24: 129-146.
6. Ball, P., 2005. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature 436: 900.
7. Barnes, S., 1971. Making out in industrial research. Science Studies 1: 157-175.
8. Bornmann, L., and H. Daniel, 2005. Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work? Scientometrics 65: 391-392.
9. Braun, T., and W. Glänzel, 2000. Chemistry research in Eastern Central Europe (1992-1997): Facts and figures on publication output and citation impact for 13 countries. Scientometrics 49: 187-214.
10. Callon, M., 1997. Actor-network theory: The market test. Actor Network and After Workshop. Centre for Social Theory and Technology, Keele University, UK.
11. Cole, S., and J. Cole, 1967. Scientific output and recognition: A study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review 32: 377-390.
12. Cole, S., and J. Cole, 1974. Social stratification in science. American Journal of Physics 42: 923-924.
13. Cotgrove, S., and S. Box, 1970. Science, industry and society. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble.
14. Crane, D., 1967. The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociology Review 32: 195-201.
15. Crawford, E., 1998. Nobel: Always the winners, never the losers. Science 282: 1256-1257.
16. Dasgupta, P., and P. David, 1994. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 23: 487-521.
17. Debackere, K., and M. Rappa, 1994. Technological communities and the diffusion of knowledge: A replication and validation. R&D Management 24: 355-371.
18. de Solla Price, D., 1965. Networks of scientific papers. Science 149: 510-515.
19. de Solla Price, D., 1980. A general theory of bibliometrics and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Informatics Society 27: 292-306.
20. Eisenberg, R., 1989. Patents and the progress of science: Exclusive rights and experimental use. University of Chicago Law Review 56: 1017-1086.
21. Ellis, N., 1972. The occupation of science. In: B. Barnes (Ed.), Sociology of science. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
22. Evans, J., 2005. Stratification in knowledge production: Author prestige and the influence of an American academic debate. Poetics 33: 111-133.
23. Finkenstaedt, T., and M. Fries, 1978. Zur forschungsmessung in den geisteswissenschaften. Ad Acta 3: 110-164.
24. Garfield, E., 1963. Citation indexes in sociological and historical research. American Documentation 14: 289-291.
25. Garfield, E., 1970. Citation indexing for studying science. Nature 227: 669-671.
26. Garfield, E., and A. Welljams-Dorof, 1992. Of Nobel class: A citation perspective on high impact research authors. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13: 117-135.
27. Glänzel, W., 2000. Science in Scandinavia: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 48: 121-150.
28. Glänzel, W., M. Meyer, B. Schlemmer, M. Du Plessis, B. Thijs, T. Magerman, K. Debackere, and R. Veugelers, 2003. Biotechnology: An analysis based on publications and patents. Leuven: Steunpunt O&O Statistieken.
29. Hagstrom, W., 1965. The scientific community. New York, NY: Basic Books.
30. Hirsch, J., 2005. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 16569-16572.
31. Kidd, C., 1965. Basic research: Description versus definition. In: Kaplan, N. (Ed.), Science and society. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
32. Kostoff, R., 1998. The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation: Comments on theories of citation. Scientometrics 43: 27-43.
33. Latour, B., 1993. We have never been modern. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
34. Leydesdorff, L. 1998. Theories of citation. Scientometrics 43: 5-25.
35. Lotka, A., 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 16: 317-323.
36. McMillan, G., and D. Deeds, 1998. The role of reputation in the recruitment of scientists. R&D Management 28: 299-278.
37. Merton, R., 1968. The Matthew effect in science. Science 159: 59.
38. Merton, R., 1973. The Sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Moed, H., 2000. Bibliometric indicators reflect publication and management strategies. Scientometrics 47: 323-346.
40. Peritz, B., 1992. On the objectives of citation analysis: Problems of theory and method. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43: 448-451.
41. Rodriguez, V., 2005. Material transfer agreements: Open science vs. proprietary claims. Nature Biotechnology 23: 489-491.
42. Rodriguez, V., F. Janssens, K. Debackere, and B. De Moor, 2007. Do material transfer agreements affect the choice of research agendas? The case of biotechnology in Belgium. Scientometrics 71.
43. Seglen, P., 1992. The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43: 628-638.
44. Shilling, C., and J. Bernard, 1964. Informal communication among bioscientists. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
45. Van Raan, A., 2006. Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgement for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics 67: 491-502.
46. Walsh, J., A. Arora, and W. Cohen, 2003. Research tool patenting and licensing and biomedical innovation. In: Cohen, W., Merrill, S. (Eds.), Patents in the knowledge-based economy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
47. Walsh, J., C. Cho, and W. Cohen, 2005. Patents, material transfers, and access to research inputs in biomedical research: Final report to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-Related Inventions. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
48. Wesolowsky, G., 1976. Multiple regression and analysis of variance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Zucker, L., and M. Darby, 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.
50. Zucker, L., and M. Darby, 2001. Capturing technological opportunity via Japan's star scientists: Evidence from Japanese firm's biotech patents and products. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 37-58.
51. Zuckerman, H., 1967. Nobel laureates in science: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, and authorship. American Sociological Review 32: 391-403.
52. Zuckerman, H., 1996. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.