Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: A bibliometric perspective

Scientometrics

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 151-174

  Meyer, Martin ^a,d,e   Grant, Kevin ^b   Morlacchi, Piera ^c   Weckowska, Dagmara ^c,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VAASA   (Finland)

^f UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bibexcel; Bibliometric review; Mapping; Triple Helix

Indexed keywords

EID: 84897619247     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1103-8     Document Type: Article

References (115)

1. Abramson, N. (1963). Information theory and coding. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Acosta, M., & Coronado, D. (2003). Science-technology flows in Spanish regions-An analysis of scientific citations in patents. Research Policy, 32(10), 1783-1803.
3. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Fernández, A. (2009). Exploring the quality of environmental technology in Europe: Evidence from patent citations. Scientometrics, 80(1), 131-152.
4. Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance-An international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822-834.
5. Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197-207.
6. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. P. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188.
7. Bibexcel. (2008). A toolbox for biblio-metricians. Version 2008-05-13, developed by Professor Olle Persson. http://www. umu. se/inforsk and http://www8. umu. se/inforsk/Bibexcel/index. html/.
8. Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (Eds.). (1998). Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world. London: UCL Press.
9. Callaert, J., van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3-20.
10. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. SpringerBriefs in Business, 7. doi: 10. 1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1.
11. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation: Issues in higher education. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press.
12. Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65-75.
13. Danell, R., & Persson, O. (2003). Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 58, 203-218.
14. David, P. A., & Foray, D. (2002). An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 9-23.
15. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
16. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823-833.
17. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42, 293-337.
18. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997a). Universities in the global knowledge economy. London: Cassell Academic.
19. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997b). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Pinter Publishers.
20. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Special issue of Minerva, 36, 203-288.
21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
22. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
23. Eun, J. H., Lee, K., & Wu, G. S. (2006). Explaining the 'University-run enterprises' in China: A theoretical framework for university-industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy, 35, 1329-1346.
24. Fernández-Esquinas, M., Sebastián, J., López-Facal, J., & Tortosa-Martorell, E. (2009). Growth rings in the tree of science. The Institutional Evolution of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Revista internacional de sociología, 67, 251-284.
25. Furukawa, T., Shirakawa, N., & Okuwada, K. (2011). Quantitative analysis of collaborative and mobility networks. Scientometrics, 87(3), 451-466.
26. Garnsey, E. (1998). The genesis of the high technology milieu: A study in complexity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, 361-377.
27. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93-114.
28. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
29. Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field. Leuven: K. U. Leuven, F. E. T. E. W.
30. Glänzel, W., & Schlemmer, B. (2007). National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983-2003): An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 70, 267-275.
31. Heimeriks, G., Horlesberger, M., & van Den Besselaar, P. (2003). Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks. Scientometrics, 58(2), 391-413.
32. Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 173-198.
33. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & 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.
34. Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 393-414.
35. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
36. Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7-15.
37. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14, 10-25.
38. Khan, G. F., & Park, H. W. (2011). Measuring the triple helix on the web: longitudinal trends in the university-industry-government relationship in Korea. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2443-2455.
39. Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The connected university: Driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. London: NESTA.
40. Klitkou, A., Nygaard, S., & Meyer, M. (2007). Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 491-518.
41. Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586-1598.
42. Lawton-Smith, H. (2013). The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: The case of Oxford University, Part Two. In A. Olechnicak, R. Capello, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Universities, cities and regions loci for knowledge and innovation creation (pp. 193-210). London: Routledge.
43. Lengyel, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Regional innovation systems in hungary: The failing synergy at the national level. Regional Studies, 45(5), 677-693.
44. Lepori, B., Barré, R., & Filliatreau, G. (2008). New perspectives and challenges for the design and production of S&T indicators. Research Evaluation, 17, 33-44.
45. Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press.
46. Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Triple Helix as an evolutionary model of innovation. Research Policy, 29(2-3), 243-255.
47. Leydesdorff, L. (2001). A sociological theory of communication: the self-organization of the knowledge-based society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers. http://www. upublish. com/books/leydesdorff. htm.
48. Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58, 445-467.
49. Leydesdorff, L. (2008). On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 77-85.
50. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relation. In E. Carayannis & D. Campbell (Eds.), The encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
51. Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (February 2012). In Elias, G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 1844-1851). New York: Springer; with an additional note on N-Tuple of Helices, in: ibidem, pp. 1400-1402.
52. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23, 279-286.
53. Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., & van der Panne, G. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of Triple-Helix relations among 'technology, organization, and territory'. Research Policy, 35(2), 181-199.
54. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies (Conference Report). Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203.
55. Leydesdorff, L., & Fritsch, M. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1538-1553.
56. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations: A model for innovation in the 'knowledge-based' economy. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191-203.
57. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). The Triple Helix, indicators, and knowledge-based innovation systems. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441-1449.
58. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 207-222.
59. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University-industry-government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 778-788.
60. Liang, L. M., Chen, L. X., Wu, Y. S., & Yuan, J. P. (2012). The role of Chinese universities in enterprise-university research collaboration. Scientometrics, 90(1), 253-269.
61. López, J. J., & Robertson, A. (2007). Ethics or politics? The emergence of ELSI Discourse in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, 44, 201-218.
62. Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The dynamics of exchanges and references among scientific texts, and the autopoiesis of discursive knowledge. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 261-271.
63. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349-369). London: Pinter Publishers.
64. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National Innovation Systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
65. Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15-36.
66. Marshakova, I. V. (1973). System of connections between documents based on references (as the Science Citation Index). Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya, 2(6), 3-8. (in Russian).
67. Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259-283.
68. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel/Springer.
69. McMillan, G. S., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. L. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1-8.
70. Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29, 409-434.
71. Meyer, M. (2002). Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193-212.
72. Meyer, M. (2005). Knowledge integrators or weak links? Inventor-authors: An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology ISSI 2005. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sweden (pp. 34-44).
73. Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646-1662.
74. Meyer, M. (2012). Triple Helix indicators-A bibliometric perspective. Hélice, 1(2), 4-6.
75. Meyer, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: An exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61(3), 443-456.
76. Meyer, M., Siniläinen, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2003). Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2), 321-350.
77. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835-851.
78. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U. S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99-119.
79. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U. S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330.
80. Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3-6), 369-381.
81. Nelson, R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
83. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
84. OECD (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. OECD Publishing. doi: 10. 1787/9789264100244-en.
85. Pajek (2008). Pajek wiki. http://pajek. imfm. si/doku. php.
86. Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65(1), 3-27.
87. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39, 640-649.
88. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343-373.
89. Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986-1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31-38.
90. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In Celebrating scholarly communication studies. Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9-24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). Retrieved January 17, 2010, from http://www8. umu. se/inforsk/Bibexcel/ollepersson60. pdf.
91. Price, D. J. de Solla. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553-568.
92. Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58, 301-320.
93. Sábato, J. (1975). El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia-technología-desarrollo-dependencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
94. Sabato, J., & Mackenzie, M. (1982). La producción de tecnología. Autónoma o transnacional. Mexico City: Nueva Imagen.
95. Sanders, C. B., & Miller, F. A. (2010). Reframing norms: Boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer. Science and Public Policy, 37, 689-701.
96. Saragossi, S., & von Pottelsberghe, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47-51.
97. Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), 193-211.
98. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
99. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
100. Shinn, T. (2002). The Triple Helix and the new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32, 599-614.
101. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
102. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265-269.
103. Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). Impact in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40(10), 1369-1379.
104. Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.
105. Stuart, D., Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2007). UK academic Web links and collaboration-An exploratory study. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 231-246.
106. Sun, Y., & Negishi, M. (2010). Measuring the relationships among university, industry and other sectors in Japan's national innovation system: A comparison of new approaches with mutual information indicators. Scientometrics, 82, 677-685.
107. Theil, H. (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis: With applications in the social and administrative sciences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
108. Toynbee, A. J. (1934). Introduction: The geneses of civilizations: A study of history (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
109. Uranga, M. G., Kerexeta, G. E., & Campas-Velasco, J. (2007). The dynamics of commercialization of scientific knowledge in biotechnology and nanotechnology. European Planning Studies, 15(9), 1199-1214.
110. van Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Verbraak, J. (2009). Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: An exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems. Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22, 443-464.
111. van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441-458.
112. Vilanova, M. R., & Leydesdorff, L. (2001). Why Catalonia cannot be considered as a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 50(2), 215-240.
113. Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Andries, P., Zimmermann, E., Deleus, F. (2002). Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54(1-2), 399-420.
114. Whitley, R. D. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
115. Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188-1204.