IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Larivière
  • Benoit Macaluso
  • Philippe Mongeon
  • Kyle Siler
  • Cassidy R Sugimoto

Abstract

Anecdotes abound regarding the decline of basic research in industrial and governmental settings, but very little empirical evidence exists about the phenomenon. This article provides a systematic and historical analysis of the contribution of various institutional sectors to knowledge production at the world and country levels across the past four decades. It highlights a dramatic decline in the diffusion of basic research by industrial and governmental sectors across all countries—with a corresponding increase in the share from universities—as well as an increase of partnerships between universities and other sectors. Results also shows an increase in the relative share of industries in applied research, as measured through patents. Such divergence in university and industry research activities may hinder industries’ ability to translate basic knowledge into technological innovation, and could lead to a growing misalignment between doctoral training and future job expectations. Industries and universities must rethink strategies for partnerships and publishing to maximize scientific progress and to ensure the greatest gains for society.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Philippe Mongeon & Kyle Siler & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2018. "Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202120
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202120
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202120&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202120?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids 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, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    2. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    3. Godin, Benoit & Gingras, Yves, 2000. "The place of universities in the system of knowledge production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 273-278, February.
    4. Hannah Hoag, 2011. "Canadian research shift makes waves," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7343), pages 269-269, April.
    5. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    6. Rafols, Ismael & Hopkins, Michael M. & Hoekman, Jarno & Siepel, Josh & O'Hare, Alice & Perianes-Rodríguez, Antonio & Nightingale, Paul, 2014. "Big Pharma, little science?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 22-38.
    7. Loet Leydesdorff, 2003. "The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 445-467, October.
    8. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    9. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    11. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    12. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    13. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    15. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    16. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fei Shu & Wei Quan & Bikun Chen & Junping Qiu & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1683-1695, March.
    2. Belfiore, Alessandra & Cuccurullo, Corrado & Aria, Massimo, 2022. "IoT in healthcare: A scientometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Huimin Xu & Yi Bu & Meijun Liu & Chenwei Zhang & Mengyi Sun & Yi Zhang & Eric Meyer & Eduardo Salas & Ying Ding, 2022. "Team power dynamics and team impact: New perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(10), pages 1489-1505, October.
    4. Bastian Krieger & Maikel Pellens & Knut Blind & Sonia Gruber & Torben Schubert, 2021. "Are firms withdrawing from basic research? An analysis of firm-level publication behaviour in Germany," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9677-9698, December.
    5. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    6. J. M. Santos & H. Horta & H. Luna, 2022. "The relationship between academics’ strategic research agendas and their preferences for basic research, applied research, or experimental development," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 4191-4225, July.
    7. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    8. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do firms publish? A multi-sectoral analysis," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-05, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Concepta McManus & Abilio Afonso Baeta Neves, 2021. "Production profiles in Brazilian Science, with special attention to social sciences and humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2413-2435, March.
    10. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Sarah Guillou & Basheer Kalash & Lionel Nesta & Michele Pezzoni & Evens Salies & Marc-Antoine Faure, 2023. "Impact de la nature du financement de la recherche sur ses résultats," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-04026916, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.
    3. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    5. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    6. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    7. Chen, Xi & Mao, Jin & Ma, Yaxue & Li, Gang, 2024. "The knowledge linkage between science and technology influences corporate technological innovation: Evidence from scientific publications and patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Baruffaldi, Stefano & Poege, Felix, 2020. "A Firm Scientific Community: Industry Participation and Knowledge Diffusion," IZA Discussion Papers 13419, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    11. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    12. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    13. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    14. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    15. Catalina Martínez & Sarah Parlane, 2018. "On the firms’ decision to hire academic scientists," Working Papers 1801, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    16. Byeongdeuk Jang & Jae-Yong Choung & Inje Kang, 2022. "Knowledge production patterns of China and the US: quantum technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5691-5719, October.
    17. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    18. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    19. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "Firms’ influence on the evolution of published knowledge when a science-related technology emerges: the case of artificial intelligence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 209-247, January.
    21. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0202120. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.