Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists

Blind, Knut; Pohlisch, Jakob; Zi, Aikaterini

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.011

Cited by 85 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This exerts pressure to organise academic work in terms of publishable units and an orientation toward journals with a solid reputation (Müller and de Rijcke 2017). 1 Thus, researchers may either be interested in the number of publications or the impact factor of the journals in which they publish (Blind et al 2018; Rushforth and de Rijcke 2015).…”

Section: Expected Scientific Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hesitation is due partly to concerns about research integrity, reproducibility, academic freedom (Davis et al 2011;Jasny et al 2017;Tartari and Breschi 2012) and possible neglect of more fundamental research (Salter and Martin 2001;Ziman 2002). Furthermore, researchers are subject to the academic competitive selection environment, which is dominated by considerations concerning academic excellence, high-impact journal articles and collaborations with reputable academic partners (Blind et al 2018;Bozeman et al 2013;Sauermann and Roach 2016). Although some evidence indicates that collaboration with industry can promote academic careers (Cañibano et al 2019;Dietz and Bozeman 2005;Sauermann and Stephan 2013;Wright et al 2014), such collaboration often is perceived as coming at the expense of traditional academic output and collaboration between academics (Clark 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment

Rijnsoever

Hessels

2020

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many studies have been conducted on the drivers of and barriers to research collaborations, current literature provides limited insights into the ways in which individual researchers choose to engage in different collaborative projects. Using a choice experiment, we studied the factors that drive this choice using a representative sample of 3145 researchers from Western Europe and North America who publish in English. We find that for most researchers, the expected publication of research in scientific journals deriving from a project is the most decisive factor driving their collaboration choices. Moreover, most respondents prefer to collaborate with other partners than industry. However, different factors’ influence varies across groups of researchers. These groups are characterised as going for the ‘puzzle’ (60% of the sample), the ‘ribbon’ (33%) or the ‘gold’ (8%), i.e., primarily oriented toward intellectual goals, recognition or money, respectively. This heterogeneity shows that a combination of interventions will be required for governments aiming to promote university–industry collaborations.

show abstract

Section: Expected Scientific Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment

Rijnsoever

Hessels

2020

J Technol Transf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first, covering STEM disciplines in the US, shows no gender gap for patenting and furthermore reports that collaborating with industry increases the likelihood of patenting particularly for female academic scientists (Meng, 2016). The second finds no effect of gender amongst German material scientists on engagement in standardisation committees (Blind et al, 2018). The third shows that female academics in Denmark engage less with private organisations than their male counterparts, while no gender differences prevail with respect to public organisations (Kongsted et al, 2017).…”

Section: Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Professional recognition ('ribbon'), as well as the attraction of intellectual pursuit ('puzzle'), emerged as key motivational factors for scientists' collaborative and commercial engagement in a large survey of UK scientists (Lam, 2011). Blind et al (2018) report for Germany that involvement in technical standardisation initiatives or committees is motivated intrinsically ('puzzle') while patenting is motivated by 'gold' (e.g. income).…”

Section: Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academic Engagement: A Review of the Literature 2011-2019

Perkmann¹,

Salandra

Tartari

et al. 2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We provide a systematic review of the literature on academic engagement from 2011 onwards, which was the cutoff year of a previous review article published in Research Policy. Academic engagement refers to knowledge-related interactions of academic scientists with external organisations. It includes activities such as collaborative research with industry, contract research, consulting and informal ties. We consolidate what is known about the individual, organisational and institutional antecedents of academic engagement, and its consequences for research, commercialisation, and society at large. Our results suggest that individual characteristics associated with academic engagement include being scientifically productive, senior, male, locally trained, and commercially experienced. Academic engagement is also socially conditioned by peer effects and disciplinary characteristics. In terms of consequences, academic engagement is positively associated with academics' subsequent scientific productivity. We propose new areas of investigation where evidence remains inconclusive, including individual life cycle effects, the role of organisational contexts and incentives, cross-national comparisons, and the impact of academic engagement on the quality of subsequent research as well as the educational, commercial and society-wide impact.

show abstract

Motivations for a firm's willingness to standardize: A perspective based on collective action theory

Zhou,

Li,

Wang

et al. 2024

Manage Decis Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standards allow companies to improve their competitiveness and achieve their strategic goals. Encouraging a strong willingness among firms to develop and implement standards is a complex task; consequently, the linkages between internal and external factors influencing this willingness require further exploration. This study considers interorganizational learning as an intermediate mechanism for empirical research and investigates the relationship between external motivation for collective action and a firm's willingness to participate in standards development. To verify the proposed theoretical model, this study used a questionnaire to collect 205 responses from companies belonging to the Zhejiang Brand Building Association. Structural equation modeling was conducted to verify the research framework. The results of this study reveal that an association's organizational capability has a direct positive effect on its willingness to develop and implement standards; however, government support and industrial scale have no significant positive direct effects on collective action willingness. Moreover, knowledge acquisition and knowledge application have mediating effects on the relationship between external motivation for collective action and willingness for collective action. This study analyzes the factors influencing a firm's participation in standardization activities on the basis of a collective action perspective and the mediating role of interorganizational learning. This study contributes to the literature by developing collective action and interorganizational learning theories.

show abstract

Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barriers of scientists

Cited by 85 publications

References 63 publications

How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment

How academic researchers select collaborative research projects: a choice experiment

Academic Engagement: A Review of the Literature 2011-2019

Motivations for a firm's willingness to standardize: A perspective based on collective action theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About