The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 80, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1271-1286

  Guan, Jiancheng ^a,b   Zhao, Qingjun ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

^b FUDAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Nanobiopharmaceuticals; S curve models; Small world networks; University industry collaboration

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION; INNOVATION PERFORMANCE; INTERDISCIPLINARY FIELDS; KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS; NANOBIOPHARMACEUTICALS; S-CURVE MODEL; UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIES; UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION;

DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRY; SMALL-WORLD NETWORKS;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE; MODELING; NETWORK ANALYSIS; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; UNIVERSITY SECTOR;

EID: 84880641201     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.013     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Guan J.C., Yam R.C.M., Mok C.K. Collaboration between industry and research institutes/universities on industrial innovation in Beijing, China. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2005, 17(3):339-353.
2. Balconi M., Breschi S., Lissoni F. Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Res. Policy 2004, 33(1):127-145.
3. Li J.Z. The reason and organization of R&D cooperation. Sci. Res. Manage. 2000, 21(1):106-112. (in Chinese).
4. Godin B.Y., Gingrasr Y. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Res. Policy 2000, 29:273-278.
5. Zeng S.X., Xie X.M., Tam C.M. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation 2010, 30(3):181-194.
6. Gao X., Guan J.C. Networks of scientific journals: an exploration of Chinese patent data. Scientometrics 2009, 80(1):283-302.
7. Latour B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society 1987, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
8. Mancinelli S., Mazzanti M. Innovation, networking and complementarity, Evidence on SME performances for a local economic system in North-Eastern Italy. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2008, 43(3).
9. Brioschi F., Brioschi M.S., Cainell I.G. From the industrial district to the district group: an insight into the evolution of local capitalism in Italy. Reg. Stud. 2002, 36(9):1037-1052.
10. Becker W., Dietz J. R&D co-operation and innovation activities of firms-evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Res. Policy 2004, 33(2):209-223.
11. Uzzi B., Spiro J. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 2005, 111:447-504.
12. Schilling M.A., Phelps C.C. Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manage. Sci. 2007, 53(7):1113-1126.
13. Chen Z.F., Guan J.C. The impact of small world on innovation: an empirical study of 16 countries. J. Informetrics 2010, 4:97-106.
14. Owen-Smith J., et al. A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Manage. Sci. 2002, 48(1):24-43.
15. George G., Zahra S.A., Wood D.R. The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. J. Bus. Venturing 2002, 17(6):577-609.
16. Cantner U., Graf H. The network of innovators in Jena: an application of social network analysis. Res. Policy 2006, 35(4):463-480.
17. Lenoir T., Herron P. Tracking the current rise of Chinese pharmaceutical bionanotechnology. J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2009, 4(8). (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19838996).
18. Jain K.K. The Handbook of Nanomedicine 2008, Humana Press, Totowa USA.
19. Durán N., Marcato P.D. New aspects of nanopharmaceutical delivery systems. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2008, 8(5):1-14.
20. Chen K.H., Guan J.C. A bibliometric investigation of research performance in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. J. Informetrics 2011, 5:233-247.
21. Keenan M. Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience. J. Forecasting 2003, 22(2-3):129-160.
22. Koppikar V., Maebius S., Rutt J. Current trends in nanotech patents: a view from inside the patent office. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 2004, 1(1):1-7.
23. Klein J.T. Interdisciplinarity 1990, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI.
24. Zhao Q.J., Guan J.C. International collaboration of three 'giants' with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Scientometrics 2011, 87(1):159-170.
25. Guimera R., Luis A.N., Amaral L. Cartography of complex networks: modules an universal roles. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2005, 2:02001.
26. Fleming L., King C., Juda A.I. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18:938-954.
27. Newman M.E.J. Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Phys. Rev. E 2001, 64:016131.
28. Watts D.J. Small Worlds: the Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness 1999, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
29. Hansen M.T. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13:232-250.
30. Jaccard J., Turrisi R. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression 2003, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
31. Zaheer A., Bell G.G. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 2005, 26(9):809-825.
32. Gay B., Dousset B. Innovation and network structural dynamics: study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Res. Policy 2005, 34(10):1457-1475.
33. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91:481-510.
34. Watts D.J., Strogatz S.H. Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature 1998, 393(6684):440-442.
35. Newman M.E.J. Random graphs as models of networks. Handbook of Graphs and Networks: From the Genome to the Internet 2002, Wiley, New York, (Chapter 2).
36. Moody J. The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963-1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004, 69:213-238.
37. Gulati R., Sytch M., Tatarynowicz A. The rise and fall of small worlds: exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organization Science 2010, 10.1287/orsc.1100.0592.
38. 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.
39. Guan J.C., Ma N. China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: a comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience 'giants'. Res. Policy 2007, 36(6):880-886.
40. Takeda Y., Mae S., Kajikawa Y., Matsushima K. Nanobiotechnology as an emerging research domain from nanotechnology: a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics 2009, 80(1):25-40.
41. Hoang H., Antoncic B. Network based research in entrepreneurship: a critical review. J. Bus. Venturing 2003, 18(2):165-187.
42. Choudhury T., Rehg J.M., Pavlovic V., Pentland A. Boosting and structure learning in dynamic Bayesian networks for audio-visual speaker detection. Proc. 16th International Conference on Pattern Recognition 2002, 789-794. IEEE Computer Society, Quebec City, PQ, Canada.
43. Schmookler J. Invention and Economic Growth 1966, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
44. Hargadon A., Fanelli A. Action and possibility: reconciling dual perspectives of knowledge in organizations. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13:290-302.
45. Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J. Econ. Lit. December 1990, 28:1661-1707.
46. Engelsman E.C., Van Raan A.F.J. A patent-based cartography of technology. Res. Policy 1994, 23(1):1-26.
47. Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B. Patents as a measure of innovative activity. Kyklos 1989, 42(2):171-180.
48. Kramer M.S. Valuation and assessment of patents and patent portfolios through analytical techniques. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 2007, 463-488.
49. Gambardella A., Harhoff D., Verspagen B. The value of European patents. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2008, 5(2):69-84.
50. Hall B.H., Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citation. Rand J. Econ. 2005, 36(1):16-38.
51. Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F., Vopel K. Citations frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1999, 81(3):511-515.
52. Bessen J. The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 2008, 37:932-945.
53. J. Putnam, The value of international patent rights, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 1996.
54. Martínez C. Patent families: when do different definitions really matter?. Scientometrics 2011, 86:39-63.
55. Knight H.J. Patent Strategy for Researchers and Research Managers 2001, Wiley, New York.
56. Mogee M.E., Kolar R., Putnam J. Extracting useful information for technology management from international patent records. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I Final Report 1992, National Science Foundation.
57. Giummo J. German employee inventors' compensation records: a window into the returns to patented inventions. Res. Policy 2010, 39:969-984.
58. Lanjouw J.O., Pakes A., Putnam J. How to count patents and value intellectual property: the uses of patent renewal and application data. J. Ind. Econ. 1998, 46:405-432.
59. Levin R., Klevorick A., Nelson R., Winter S. Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 1987, 3:783-820.
60. Lanjouw J.O., Mody A. Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology. Res. Policy 1996, 25:549-571.
61. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res. Policy 2003, 32:1343-1363.
62. Wagner C.S., Leydesdorff L. Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Res. Policy 2005, 34(10):1608-1618.
63. Feld S. The focused organization of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1981, 86:1015-1035.
64. Newman M.E.J., Strogatz S.H., Watts D.J. Random graph models of social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99:2566-2572.
65. Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C. Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis 2002, Analytic Technologies, Harvard.
66. Blundell R.R., Griffith R., Van Reenen J. Dynamic count data models of technological innovation. Econom. J. 1995, 105:333-344.
67. Freeman L. A set of measures of centrality: I. Conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1979, 1:215-239.
68. Yin L., Kretschmer H., Hanneman R.A., Liu Z. Connection and stratification in research collaboration: an analysis of the COLLNET network. Inf. Process. Manage. 2006, 42:1599-1613.
69. Wang J.C., Chiang C.H., Lin S.W. Network structure of innovation: can brokerage or closure predict patent quality?. Scientometrics 2010, 84:735-748.
70. Granovetter M.S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 1973, 78:1360-1380.
71. Yamaguchi K. The flow of information through social networks: diagonal-free measures of inefficiency and the structural determinants of inefficiency. Soc. Netw. 1994, 16:57-86.
72. 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.
73. Sampson R. The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. J. Law Econom. Organ. 2004, 20:484-526.
74. Liu C.Y., Wang J.C. Forecasting the development of the biped robot walking technique in Japan through S-curve model analysis. Scientometrics 2010, 82(1):21-36.
75. Su C.Z., Hui L. Subject knowledge development and predict: the supply chain management for example. Chin. Manage. Rev. 2005, 8(3):1-17. (in Chinese).
76. Gujarati D.N. Basic Econometrics 1995, McGraw-Hill, New York. 3rd ed.
77. He J., Fallah M.H. Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2009, 76:91-106.
78. Roveda C., Vecchiato R. Foresight and innovation in the context of industrial clusters: the case of some Italian districts. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 2008, 75:817-833.
79. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41:116-145.
80. Yang P.Y., Chang Y.C. Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment. Scientometrics 2010, 83:403-421.
81. Marques J., Caraca J., Diz H. How can university-industry-government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal ?-the case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation 2006, 26(4):534-542.
82. Ratinho T., Henriques E. The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: evidence from Portugal. Technovation 2010, 278-290.
83. Aernoudt R. Incubators: tool for entrepreneurship?. Small Bus. Econ. 2004, 23(2):127-135.
84. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy 2000, 29(2):109-123.
85. Etzkowitz H. Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Soc. Sci. Inf. 2003, 42(3):293-338.
86. Chesbrough H. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
87. Teece D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 2007, 28:1319-1350.
88. Gassmann O., Enkel E. Towards a theory of open innovation: three core process archetypes. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference 2004, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Lisbon, Portugal.
89. Chesbrough H. Managing open innovation. Res. Technol. Manage. 2004, 47(1):23-35.