The questionnaire survey is one of the most commonly used methods of data collection in public management research. These surveys often provide the information used to measure both the independent and dependent variables in an analysis. However, this introduces the risk of common method bias-a serious methodological challenge that has not received much attention as a distinct topic in public management research. We discuss the challenge of common method bias in relation to public management studies and illustrate the problem using an analysis of intrinsic work motivation and sickness absence. Thereafter, we discuss solutions for reducing common method bias when it is not possible to use different methods.

The occurrence of close proximity infection for many respiratory diseases is often cited as evidence of large droplet and/or close contact transmission. We explored interpersonal exposure of exhaled droplets and droplet nuclei of two standing thermal manikins as affected by distance, humidity, ventilation, and breathing mode. Under the specific set of conditions studied, we found a substantial increase in airborne exposure to droplet nuclei exhaled by the source manikin when a susceptible manikin is within about 1.5 m of the source manikin, referred to as the proximity effect. The threshold distance of about 1.5 m distinguishes the two basic transmission processes of droplets and droplet nuclei, that is, short-range modes and the long-range airborne route. The short-range modes include both the conventional large droplet route and the newly defined short-range airborne transmission. We thus reveal that transmission occurring in close proximity to the source patient includes both droplet-borne (large droplet) and short-range airborne routes, in addition to the direct deposition of large droplets on other body surfaces. The mechanisms of the droplet-borne and short-range airborne routes are different; their effective control methods also differ. Neither the current droplet precautions nor dilution ventilation prevents short-range airborne transmission, so new control methods are needed.

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007University technology commercialization, Research collaboration, Biotechnology, I23, L65, O31, O34, O38,

No abstract

No abstract