Co-authorship networks in development of solar cell technology: International and regional knowledge interaction

Advances in Spatial Science

Volumn 59, Issue , 2009, Pages 347-372

  Larsen, Katarina ^a  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924037131     PISSN: 14309602     EISSN: 21979375     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-01017-0_19     Document Type: Chapter

References (64)

1. Acs ZA, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1994) R&D spillovers and innovative activity. Manage Decision Econ 15(2):131-138
2. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1991) Real effects of academic research: Comment. Am Econ Rev 82(1):363-367
3. Aksnes DW (2003) Characteristics of highly cited papers. Res Eval 12(3):157-170
4. Andersson Å E, Persson O (1993) Networking Scientists. Annals Reg Sci 27(1):11-21
5. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs ZJ (2000) Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Paper Reg Sci 79:435-443
6. Arnall HA (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics; a technical, political and institutional map of emerging technologies. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London
7. Audretsch DB, Bozeman B, Combs KL, Feldman MP, Link AN, Siegel DS, Stephan P, Tassey G, Wessner C (2002) The economics of science and technology. J Technol Transfer 27:155-203
8. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630-640
9. Beckman M (1993) The case of scientific interaction at a distance. Ann Reg Sci 27(1):5-9
10. Beckman M (1994) On knowledge networks in science: collaboration among equals. Ann Reg Sci 28:233-242
11. Braun T, Schubert A, Zsindely S (1997) Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics 38(2):321-325
12. Calero C, Buter R, Cabello Valdés C, Noyons E (2006) How to identify research groups using publication analysis: an example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 66(2):365-376
13. Chen C (2005) CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 57(3):359-377
14. Chen C, Hicks D (2004) Tracing knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics 59(2):199-211
15. Danell R, Persson O (2003) Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix. Scientometrics 58(2):205-218
16. Darby MR, Zucker LG (2003) Grilichesian breakthroughs: Inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology, NBER working paper 9825, National Bureau of Economic Research
17. David PA, Keely LC (2003) The economics of scientific research coalitions: collaborative network formation in the presence of multiple funding agencies. In: Geuna A, Salter A, Steinmueller EW (eds) Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham-Northampton
18. EC (2000) Towards a European research area. Brussels, European Commission
19. EC (2003) COM (2003)131FINAL: Developing an action plan for environmental technology. European Commission
20. ESRC (2003)The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Report by Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A, ISBN 086226-294-1. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), UK
21. EU (2005) Nanotechnology, http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology Accessed 4 August 2005
22. Feldman MP (1999) The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Econ Innov New Technol 8:5-25
23. Feldman MP (2001) Where science comes to life: university bioscience, commercial spin-offs, and regional development. J Comp Pol Anal: Res Practice 2:345-361
24. Feldman MP, Audretsch DP (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409-429
25. Gauffriau M, Olesen Larsen P (2005) Counting methods are decisive for rankings based on publication and citation studies. Scientometrics 64(1):85-93
26. Glänzel W, Schubert A (2001) Double effort - Double impact? A critical view of international co-authorship in chemistry. Scientomentrics 50(2):199-214
27. Godø H, Nedrum L, Rapmund A, Nygaard S (2003) Innovations in fuel cells and related hydrogen technology in Norway - OECD case study in the energy sector, NIFU report 35/2003
28. Hagfeldt A, Gratzel M (1994) Light induced redox reactions in nanocrystalline systems. Chem Rev 95:49-68
29. Hagedoorn J, Link AN, Vonortas NS (2000) Research partnerships. Res Pol 29:567-586
30. Hicks D, Tomizawa H, Saitoh Y, Kobayashi S (2004) Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of federally funded research in the United States. Res Eval 13(2):78-86
31. Hicks D, Katz S (1997) The changing shape of British industrial research. STEEP Special Report No. 6, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex
32. Heinze T (2006) Emergence of nano S&T in Germany. Network formation and company performance. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Discussion Paper No. 7/2006, ISSN 1612-1430
33. IVA (2004) Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences’ seminar on Swedish nanotechnology, 16 March 2004
34. Jacobsson S, Andersson BA, Bångens L (2001) Transforming the energy system - the evolution of the German technological system for solar cells. SPRU electronic Working Paper Series, No. 84, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex
35. Jaffe AB (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79:957-970
36. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic loclisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108:577-598
37. Jakélius S (2001) Clean technologies for sustainable development. In: Silveira S (ed) Building sustainable energy systems: Swedish Experiences. Svensk Byggtjänst and Swedish National Energy Administration, Stockholm, pp 267-300
38. Karlsson C, Manduchi A (2001) Knowledge spillovers in a spatial context - A critical review and assessment. In: Fischer MM, Frohlich J (eds) Knowledge complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin
39. Katz JS (1994) Geographic proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics 31:31-34
40. Larsen K (2008) Knowledge network hubs and measures of research impact, science structure, and publication output in nanostructured solar cell research. Scientometrics 74(1):123-142
41. Larsen K (2003) Research assessment criteria and university-industry links in the social contract of ‘applicable’ science - Experiences from funding of biomedical science and strategic environmental research in Sweden and the UK, presented at conference in honour of Keith Pavitt: What do we know about innovation? Organised by SPRU - Science and Technology Policy, University of Sussex, England, 13-15th November 2003
42. Law M, Greene LE, Johnson JC, Saykally R, Yang P (2005) Nanowire dye-sensitized solar cells. Nat Mater 4:455-459
43. Leydesdorff L, Zhou P (2005) Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics 63(3):617-630
44. Melin G, Persson O (1996) Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics 36(3):363-377
45. Meyer M (2000a) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res Pol 29:409-434
46. Meyer M (2000) What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 49(1):93-123
47. Meyer M (2000) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163-183
48. Meyer M, Persson O (1998) Nanotechnology - interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2):195-205
49. Newman MEJ (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(2):404-409
50. NNI (2005) National Nano Initiative in the US. http://nano.gov (Accessed 4 August 2005)
51. OECD (2003) STI Scoreboard 2003. OECD, Paris, pp 44-45
52. O’Regan B, Gratzel M (1991) A low-cost, high efficiency solar-cell based on dye-sensitized colloidal TiO2 films. Nature 353(6346):737-740
53. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci 15(1):5-21
54. Pavitt K (1998) Do patents reflect the useful output of universities? Res Eval 7(2):105-111
55. Powell WW, Koput WK, Smith-Doerr L, Owen-Smith J (1999) Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Res Sociol Organ 16:129-159
56. Powell WW, Koput WK, Smith-Doerr L, Owen-Smith J (2005) Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. Am J Sociol 110 (4):1132-1205
57. Royal Society (2003) Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/nanotechnology (Accessed 4 August, 2005)
58. Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3):425-465
59. Silveira S (ed) (2001) Building sustainable energy systems: Swedish experiences. Svensk Byggtjänst and Swedish National Energy Administration, Stockholm
60. Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci 24(4):265-269
61. STEM (2004) El från solen - energi och industri i Sverige [Electricity from the sun-energy and industry in Sweden]. Swedish National Energy Administration
62. Tijssen RJW (1991) A quantitative assessment of interdisciplinary structures in science and technology: co-classification analysis of energy research. Res Pol 21:27-44
63. Varga A (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. J Reg Sci 40:289-309
64. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge