Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit

Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization

Volumn 95, Issue , 2013, Pages 49-69

  Lissoni, Francesco ^a,d   Montobbio, Fabio ^b,d   Zirulia, Lorenzo ^c,d  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^d BOCCONI UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Authorship; Economics of science; Intellectual property; Patent publication pairs; Scientific credit

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884714970     PISSN: 01672681     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Aghion P., Bolton P. Contracts as a barrier to entry. American Economic Review 1987, 77(3):388-401.
2. Ai C., Norton E.C. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 2003, 80(1):123-129.
3. Audretsch D.B., Stephan P.E. Knowledge spillovers in biotechnology: sources and incentives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1999, 9:97-107.
4. Azoulay P., Ding W., Stuart T. The determinants of faculty patenting behaviour: demographics or opportunities?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2007, 63(4):573-576.
5. Bassecoulard E., Zitt M. Patents and publications. the lexical connection. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research, 2004, Kluwer, Dordrecht, Ch. 30. H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
6. Bates T., Anić A., Marušić M., Marušić A. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions. Journal of American Medical Association 2004, 292(1):86-88.
7. Bennett V.C., Biswas S.J. Protecting the patentability of your collaborative research. Nature Biotechnology 1997, 15:472-473.
8. Biagioli M. The instability of authorship: credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. FASEB Journal 1998, 12:3-16.
9. Biagioli M., Crane J., Derish P., Gruber M., Rennie D., Horton R. Authorship Task Force White Paper 1999, Council of Science Editors, http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services/atf_whitepaper.cfm (last accessed May 2008).
10. Bracha O. Owning Ideas: A History of Anglo-American Intellectual Property (Ch.4: United States Patents) 2005, S.J.D. Dissertation, Harvard Law School.
11. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Malerba F. Knowledge relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy 2003, 32(1):69-87.
12. Breschi S., Lissoni F., Montobbio F. From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academic inventors?. Revue d'Economie Industrielle 2005, 110(2):75-102.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law & Economics 1960, 3:1-44.
16. Colyvas J.A. From divergent meanings to common practices: the early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University. Research Policy 2007, 36:456-476.
17. Dasgupta P., David P.A. Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy 1994, 23:487-521.
18. Ding W., Murray F., Stuart T.E. Gender difference in patenting in the academic life science. Science 2006, 313:665-667.
19. Drenth J.P. Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association 1998, 280:219-221.
20. Ducor P. Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science 2000, 289:873-875.
21. Engers M., Gans J.S., Grant S., King S.P. First-author conditions. Journal of Political Economy 1999, 107(4):859-883.
22. Engelsman E.C., van Raan A.F.J. A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy 1992, 23:1-26.
23. Fasse W.F. The Muddy Metaphysics of Joint Inventorship: Cleaning Up after the 1984 Amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 116. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 1992, 5:73-74.
24. Fernandenz-Molina J.C., Pais E. The Moral Rights of Authors in the Age of Digital Information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2001, 52/2:109-117.
25. Fershtman C. The Importance of the Agenda in Bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior 1990, 2(3):224-238.
26. Fisk C.L. Credit where it's due: the law and norms of attribution. Georgetown Law Journal 2006, 95/1:49-118.
27. Gans J.S., Murray F.E., Stern S. Contracting Over the Disclosure of Scientific Knowledge: Intellectual Property Protection and Academic Publication, mimeo 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1559871.
28. Hansmann H., Santilli M. Authors' and artists' moral rights: a comparative legal and economic analysis. Journal of Legal Studies 1997, 26(1):95-143.
29. Haeussler C., Sauermann H. Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Research Policy 2013, 42(3):688-703.
30. Hermalin B.E., Katz A.W., Craswell R. Contract law. Handbook of Law and Economics 2007, 3-138. Elsevier, Amsterdam. A.M. Polinsky, S. Shavell (Eds.).
31. Hoen W.P., Henk C.W., Overbeke A.J.P.M. What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names?. Journal of American Medical Association 1998, 280:217-218.
32. Hutchins M. Common mistakes that undermine patent protection and how to avoid them. International Journal of Medical Marketing 2003, 3:204-211.
33. Hwang S.S., et al. Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors. Radiology 2003, 22:16-23.
34. ICMJE Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication 2007, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, http://www.icmje.org.
35. IEEE IEEE Publication Services and Products Board Operations Manual (revised version) 2008, http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/publications/PSPB/opsmanual.pdf.
36. Johnson J.C., Orback M.K. Perceiving the political landscape: ego biases in cognitive political networks. Social Networks 2002, 24:291-310.
37. Jones B.F., Wuchty S., Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 2008, 322:1259-1262.
38. Jones B.M. The burden of knowledge and the 'Death of the Renaissance Man': is innovation getting harder?. Review of Economic Studies 2009, 76(1):283-317.
39. Katz J.S., Martin B.R. What is research collaboration?. Research Policy 1997, 26:1-18.
40. Lacetera N., Zirulia L. Individual preferences, organization, and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2012, 84(2):550-570.
41. Leopold E., May M., Paaß Data mining and text mining for science & technology research. Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research 2004, Kluwer, Dordrecht. H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch (Eds.).
42. Lissoni F., Llerena P., McKelvey M., Sanditov B. Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation 2008, 17(2):87-102.
43. Lissoni F., Sanditov B., Tarasconi G. The Keins Database on Academic Inventors: Methodology and Contents, CESPRI Working Paper 181 2006, Bocconi University.
44. Long P.O. Invention, authorship, 'Intellectual Property', and the Origin of patents: notes toward a conceptual history. Technology and Culture 1991, 32/4:846-884.
45. Machlup F., Penrose E. The patent controversy in the nineteenth century. Journal of Economic History 1950, 10/1:1-29.
46. MacLeod C. Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism and British Identity, 1750-1914 2008, Cambridge University Press.
47. McSherry C. Who Owns Academic Work 2003, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Merton R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure 1957, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
49. Meyer M., Bhattacharya S. Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration. An exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics 2004, 61:443-456.
50. Mowatt G., Shirran L., Grimshaw J.M., Rennie D., Flanagin A., Yank V., MacLennan G., Gotzsche P.C., Bero L.A. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287:2769-2771.
51. Murray F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy 2002, 31:1389-1403.
52. Murray F., Graham L. Buying science and selling science: gender differences in the market for commercial science. Industrial and Corporate Change 2007, 16:657-689.
53. Murray F., Stern S. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2007, 63/4:648-687.
54. Murray F., Stern S. Learning to Live with Patents. A Dynamic Model of Knowledge Community's Response to Legal Institutional Change, mimeo 2008, http://fmurray.scripts.mit.edu/docs/Murray.Stern_LearningtoLivewithPatents.pdf.
55. Norton E.C., Wang H., Ai C. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata Journal 2004, 4(2):154-167.
56. Pezzoni M., Sterzi V., Lissoni F. Career progress in centralized academic systems: an analysis of French and Italian physicists. Research Policy 2012, 41(4):704-719.
57. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. Journal of American Medical Association 1998, 280:300-302.
58. Rennie D., Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of American Medical Association 1994, 271:469-471.
59. Salton G., McGill M.J. Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval 1983, McGrawHill, New York.
60. Seymore S.B. My patent, your patent, or our patent? Inventorship disputes within academic research groups. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 2006, 16:125-167.
61. Stephan P.E. The economics of science. Handbook of Economics of Innovation 2010, North Holland/Elsevier. B.H. Hall, N. Rosenberg (Eds.).
62. Stephan P.E., Levin S. Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time 1992, Oxford University Press, New York.
63. Stephan P.E., Gurmu S., Sumell A., Black G. Who's patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2007, 16(2):71-99.
64. UNESCO A Guide to Human Rights. Institutions, Standards, Procedures 2001, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris.
65. Van den Steen E. Rational overoptimism (and other biases). American Economic Review 2004, 94(4):1141-1151.
66. Vinarov S.D. Patent protection for structural genomics-related inventions. Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics 2003, 4:191-209.
67. Whittington K.B., Smith-Doerr L. Women inventors in context: disparities in patenting across academia and industry. Gender & Society 2008, 22(2):194-218.
68. WIPO Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/ (last accessed May 2008).
69. Wuchty S., Jones B.F., Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007, 316:1036-1039.
70. Zuckerman H.A. Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers: a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity. American Journal of Sociology 1968, 74(3):276-291.