IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/stp/stepre/1999r06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The changing role of patents and publishing in basic and applied modes of organised research

Author

Abstract

Organized research activity is often characterized as a tale of two cultures: the fundamental or basic science of academia as against the applied, problem-solving R&D of industry. Although the two cultures have certainly never been as isolated from each other as the label ‘pure science’ would suggest, they have traditionally demonstrated fundamental qualitative differences. An archetypical conception portrays academic and industrial modes of research as essentially different cultures: they differ in what they research, how they do so and why.The most pronounced difference however is associated with the question of motivation: it involves the way the two cultures treat their results. In this environment, the predominant rule has been that academic science treats its important results by publishing, industrial R&D basically either through secrecy or (apparently increasingly) through patenting. In this, the logic of patenting (direct and indirect costs, patentability requirements, etc) and that of publishing (peer-reviews etc) have reinforced the cultural disposition. One symptomatic result of this state is that patents and bibliometrics have become attached as ‘indicators’ for the respective fields.However, the last 20-30 years have witnessed to a mounting tendency for the two roles to intermingle: patents are being sought and issued to academics while companies are publishing in journals. In addition, evidence in each has attested to greater collaborations between the two spheres. The traditional boundaries are thus being redrawn for these very much separate proxies associated with the two main directions organized research activities take. The purpose of this report is to explore the changing roles publication and patenting play for the way applied and basic research treat their results. It explores generally how the use of the bibliometric- and patent-based proxies or indicators is changing to describe the changing research environment and what difficulties these uses can involve. Before focusing first on bibliometrics and then on patenting, several relevant conceptual and practical aspects of the changing research environment will be discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric J. Iversen & Aris Kaloudis, "undated". "The changing role of patents and publishing in basic and applied modes of organised research," STEP Report series 199906, The STEP Group, Studies in technology, innovation and economic policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:stp:stepre:1999r06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.step.no/reports/Y1999/0699.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. E. C. M. Noyons & A. F. J. van Raan, 1998. "Monitoring scientific developments from a dynamic perspective: Self‐organized structuring to map neural network research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(1), pages 68-81.
    3. Mansfield, Edwin, 1991. "Academic research and industrial innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Etzkowitz, Henry, 1998. "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 823-833, December.
    5. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    6. Hicks, Diana M. & Isard, Phoebe A. & Martin, Ben R., 1996. "A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 359-378, May.
    7. Narin, Francis & Olivastro, Dominic, 1992. "Status report: Linkage between technology and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 237-249, June.
    8. Saviotti, Pier Paolo, 1998. "On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 843-856, April.
    9. Yoshiko Okubo, 1997. "Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems: Methods and Examples," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 1997/1, OECD Publishing.
    10. Christopher T Hill & J David Roessner, 1998. "New directions in federal laboratory partnerships with industry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(5), pages 297-304, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    13. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    14. Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson & Adam Jaffe, 1997. "University Versus Corporate Patents: A Window On The Basicness Of Invention," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 19-50.
    15. Pavitt, Keith, 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 109-119, April.
    16. Leydesdorff, Loet & Cozzens, Susan & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 1994. "Tracking areas of strategic importance using scientometric journal mappings," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 217-229, March.
    17. 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..
    18. 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.
    19. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Bourke, Paul & Butler, Linda, 1998. "Institutions and the map of science: matching university departments and fields of research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 711-718, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Shen, Yung-Chi & Wang, Ming-Yeu & Yang, Ya-Chu, 2020. "Discovering the potential opportunities of scientific advancement and technological innovation: A case study of smart health monitoring technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1998. "The social shaping of the national science base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 793-805, December.
    4. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    5. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2004. "Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 709-733, July.
    6. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. R. J. W. Tussen & R. K. Buter & Th. N. van Leeuwen, 2000. "Technological Relevance of Science: An Assessment of Citation Linkages between Patents and Research Papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 389-412, February.
    8. Okubo, Yoshiko & Sjoberg, Cecilia, 2000. "The changing pattern of industrial scientific research collaboration in Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 81-98, January.
    9. Hugo Confraria & Fernando Vargas, 2019. "Scientific systems in Latin America: performance, networks, and collaborations with industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 874-915, June.
    10. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    11. 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).
    12. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2001. "Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science-technology interactions and knowledge flows," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 35-54, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider, 2012. "The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 755-776, October.
    15. Martin Meyer & Kevin Grant & Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska, 2014. "Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(1), pages 151-174, April.
    16. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    17. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    18. D. Schartinger & C. Rammer & J. Fröhlich, 2006. "Knowledge Interactions between Universities and Industry in Austria: Sectoral Patterns and Determinants," Springer Books, in: Innovation, Networks, and Knowledge Spillovers, chapter 7, pages 135-166, Springer.
    19. Lars Frode Frederiksen, 2004. "Disciplinary determinants of bibliometric impact in Danish industrial research: Collaboration and visibility," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 253-270, October.
    20. Ju, Xiaosheng & Jiang, Shengjun & Zhao, Qifeng, 2023. "Innovation effects of academic executives: Evidence from China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).

    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:stp:stepre:1999r06. 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: Nils Henrik Solum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/steppno.html .

    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.