IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v101y2014i1d10.1007_s11192-014-1330-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

R&D dynamics and scientific breakthroughs in HIV/AIDS drugs development: the case of Integrase Inhibitors

Author

Listed:
  • J. J. Winnink

    (Leiden University
    Leiden University Dual PhD Centre The Hague
    Netherlands Patent Office (a Division of Netherlands Enterprise Agency))

  • Robert J. W. Tijssen

    (Leiden University
    Stellenbosch University)

Abstract

Transformations and applications of scientific knowledge into new technologies are usually complex interactive processes. Is it possible to detect, from bibliographic information alone, structural alterations and significant events within these processes that may indicate breakthrough discoveries? In this empirical study we focus on R&D processes leading to HIV/AIDS medicines called Integrase Inhibitors. Where scientific progress and discoveries are reflected in research papers, patents signify inventions and technological achievements. Our temporal analysis of distinctive events in this R&D area, tracing trends within both bibliographic information sources, is driven by three bibliometric indicators: (1) contributions of ‘bridging researchers’ who are also inventors, (2) ‘key papers’ that subject experts in the field considered milestones in the research process, and (3) the multidisciplinary impact of those papers. The main results indicate that a combination of key papers, bridging researchers and multidisciplinary impact might help track potential ‘Charge type’ breakthrough developments.

Suggested Citation

  • J. J. Winnink & Robert J. W. Tijssen, 2014. "R&D dynamics and scientific breakthroughs in HIV/AIDS drugs development: the case of Integrase Inhibitors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1330-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-014-1330-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1330-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-014-1330-7?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2002. "Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 509-526, May.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    3. Luís M. A. Bettencourt & David I. Kaiser & Jasleen Kaur & Carlos Castillo-Chávez & David E. Wojick, 2008. "Population modeling of the emergence and development of scientific fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 495-518, June.
    4. Lori Rosenkopf & Atul Nerkar, 2001. "Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 287-306, April.
    5. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    6. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    7. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Diana Hicks, 2000. "360 degree linkage analysis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 133-143, August.
    9. Ryuzo Furukawa & Akira Goto, 2006. "Core scientists and innovation in Japanese electronics companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(2), pages 227-240, August.
    10. Meyer, Martin, 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, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    11. Marc Julius & Charles E. Berkoff & Alvin E. Strack & Frank Krasovec & A. Douglas Bender, 1977. "A very early warning system for the rapid identification and transfer of new technology," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 28(3), pages 170-174, May.
    12. Noyons, E. C. M. & van Raan, A. F. J. & Grupp, H. & Schmoch, U., 1994. "Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 443-457, July.
    13. Chen, Chaomei & Chen, Yue & Horowitz, Mark & Hou, Haiyan & Liu, Zeyuan & Pellegrino, Donald, 2009. "Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 191-209.
    14. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    15. Chaomei Chen, 2012. "Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 431-449, March.
    16. Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "Academic inventors as brokers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 843-857, September.
    17. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Chaomei Chen, 2012. "Predictive effects of structural variation on citation counts," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(3), pages 431-449, March.
    19. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    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. Anthony F J van Raan & Jos J Winnink, 2019. "The occurrence of ‘Sleeping Beauty’ publications in medical research: Their scientific impact and technological relevance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-34, October.
    2. Winnink, J.J. & Tijssen, Robert J.W. & van Raan, A.F.J., 2019. "Searching for new breakthroughs in science: How effective are computerised detection algorithms?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 673-686.

    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. Hanne Peeters & Julie Callaert & Bart Looy, 2020. "Do firms profit from involving academics when developing technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 494-521, April.
    2. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Glänzel, Wolfgang & Hussinger, Katrin, 2009. "Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 26-34, February.
    3. Xu, Haiyun & Yue, Zenghui & Pang, Hongshen & Elahi, Ehsan & Li, Jing & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Integrative model for discovering linked topics in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    4. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    5. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    6. Antonio Malva & Stijn Kelchtermans & Bart Leten & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 670-695, August.
    7. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    8. Sergio G Lazzarini & Luiz F Mesquita & Felipe Monteiro & Aldo Musacchio, 2021. "Leviathan as an inventor: An extended agency model of state-owned versus private firm invention in emerging and developed economies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(4), pages 560-594, June.
    9. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    10. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    11. Singh, Jasjit, 2008. "Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 77-96, February.
    12. Poh Kam Wong & Annette Singh, 2010. "University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 271-294, April.
    13. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    14. 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).
    15. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    16. Jacob, Jojo & Belderbos, René & Lokshin, Boris, 2023. "Entangled modes: Boundaries to effective international knowledge sourcing through technology alliances and technology-based acquisitions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    17. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    18. Luengo, María Jesús & Obeso, María, 2013. "Efeito da hélice tríplice em desempenho de inovação," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 53(4), July.
    19. Gallo, Julie Le & Plunket, Anne, 2020. "Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    20. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.

    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:spr:scient:v:101:y:2014:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-014-1330-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.