IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i1p146-158..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Academia–industry collaboration, intellectual property rights enforcement, and scientific performance: evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyue Du
  • Feng Feng

Abstract

Public research institutes (PRIs) are an important part of the academic research world and also tasked with collaborating with industry to contribute to knowledge economics. This raises conflicts between disseminating public knowledge and appropriating through secrecy or intellectual property. However, there is little empirical evidence on the effect of PRIs’ academia–industry collaboration on scientific performance. Our research fills this gap by providing an empirical analysis at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Based on a newly compiled dataset about CAS, this study explores the effect of academia–industry collaboration on scientific performance and the moderating role of intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement. The empirical results reveal that there is an inverse U-shaped relationship between academia–industry collaboration and scientific performance and IPR enforcement steepens this curvilinear relationship. These findings suggest that policymakers should be mindful of possible adverse consequences for scientific performance and strengthen the IPR enforcement, when encouraging academia–industry collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyue Du & Feng Feng, 2025. "Academia–industry collaboration, intellectual property rights enforcement, and scientific performance: evidence from Chinese Academy of Sciences," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 146-158.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:146-158.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae067
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:146-158.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.