Abstract
This paper adds to the growing empirical evidence on the relationship between patenting and publishing among university employees. Data from all Norwegian universities and a broad set of disciplines is used, consisting of confirmed patent inventors and group of peers without patents matched to the inventors by controlling for gender, age, affiliation and position. In general, the findings support earlier investigations concluding that there is a positive relationship between patenting and publishing. There are, however, important differences among fields, universities and possibly types of academic entrepreneurs, underscoring the need to look at nuanced and contextual factors when investigating the effects of patenting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The grouping of the ISI CATCODEs can be retrieved from following webpage: http://www.nifustep.no/norsk/innhold/aktiviteter/bibliometri/grouping_of_isi_catcodes (downloaded 7th December 2007).
Weighted field shares have been calculated based on the CATCODEs in the NCR. Every paper is categorized into at least one field, in the case of several fields (f) the field share for each field is weighted (1/f).
References
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 599–623.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(23), 1734–1739.
Blumenthal, D., Causino, N., & Campbell, E. G. (1997). Academic industry research relationships in genetics: A field apart. Nature Genetics, 16(1), 104–108.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2005). From publishing to patenting: Do productive scientists turn into academic inventors? Revue d’Economie Industrielle, 0(110), 75–102.
Calderini, M., & Franzoni, C. (2004). Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. In CESPRI Working Paper, vol. n., pp. 26. Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi”, CESPRI, Milano.
Calderini, M., Franzoni, C., & Vezzulli, A. (2007). If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Research Policy, 36(3), 303–319.
Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, N. N., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics—Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(4), 473–480.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. New York: Pergamon.
Coupé, T. (2003). Science is golden: Academic R&D and university patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 31–46.
Elzinga, A. (1983). Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University, Department of Theory of Science.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages. Research Policy, 27(8), 823–833.
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.
Florida, R., & Cohen, W. M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge. University-industry linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 589–610). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geuna, A. (2001). The changing rationale for European university research funding: Are there negative unintended consequences? Journal of Economic Issues, 35(3), 607–632.
Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The Emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.
Godin, B. (1998). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Social Studies of Science, 28(3), 465–483.
Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy, 29(2), 273–278.
Gulbrandsen, M. (2005). But Peter’s in it for the money”—The liminality of entrepreneurial scientists. VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 18(1–2), 49–75.
Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.
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.
Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 393–414.
Martin, B. R. (2003). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.
Merton, R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606–623.
Meyer, M. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management, 33(2), 107–115.
Meyer, M. (2006). Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Scientometrics, 68(3), 545–560.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory Tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh–Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31(3), 399–418.
Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the Post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 13–19.
OECD. (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Washington, D.C.: OECD.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 99–114.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science. Technology & Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.
Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 71–99.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596–608.
Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425–441.
Vavakova, B. (1998). The new social contract between governments, universities and society: Has the old one failed? Minerva, 36(3), 209–228.
Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided by NIFU STEP, while the earlier patent database match was funded by the Research Council of Norway’s KUNI and FORNY programmes. We would also like to thank Loet Leydesdorff and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klitkou, A., Gulbrandsen, M. The relationship between academic patenting and scientific publishing in Norway. Scientometrics 82, 93–108 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0050-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0050-x