- -

The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?

RiuNet: Institutional repository of the Polithecnic University of Valencia

Share/Send to

Cited by


The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?

Show full item record

Deste Cukierman, P.; Tang, P.; Mahdi, S.; Neely, A.; Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2013). The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?. Scientometrics. 95(2):481-502. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-0955-2

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/64562

Files in this item

Item Metadata

Title: The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: is it irreconcilable?
UPV Unit: Universitat Politècnica de València. Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento - Institut de Gestió de la Innovació i del Coneixement
Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa Aplicadas y Calidad - Departament d'Estadística i Investigació Operativa Aplicades i Qualitat
Issued date:
Universities currently need to satisfy the demands of different audiences. In light of the increasing policy emphasis on "third mission" activities, universities are attempting to incorporate these into their traditional ...[+]
Subjects: University–business collaborations , Scientific excellence , University departments , University performance , University management , Incentives , Impact assessment
Copyrigths: Cerrado
Scientometrics. (issn: 0138-9130 )
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-0955-2
Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0955-2
The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments. The authors acknowledge support from the Innovation and Productivity Grand Challenge (IPGC), an initiative of the Advanced ...[+]
Type: Artículo


Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Kristapsons, J., Tjunina, E., & Ulnicane-Ozolina, I. (2009). Moving beyond teaching and research: economic and social tasks of universities in Latvia. Science and Public Policy, 36, 133–137.

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

Ambos, T. A., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(88), 1424–1447. [+]
Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Kristapsons, J., Tjunina, E., & Ulnicane-Ozolina, I. (2009). Moving beyond teaching and research: economic and social tasks of universities in Latvia. Science and Public Policy, 36, 133–137.

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

Ambos, T. A., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & D’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(88), 1424–1447.

Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behaviours: Demographics or opportunities. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 63(4), 599–623.

Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35, 518–532.

Barker, K. (2007). The UK research assessment exercise: the evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 3–12.

Belenzon, S., & Schankerman, M. (2007). The impact of private ownership, incentives and local development objectives on university technology transfer performance (CEP discussion paper no 779). London: Centre for Economic Performance.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Academic entrepreneurs: Social learning and participation in university technology transfer. Retrieved June 16, 2006 from http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/clusters_entrepreneurship/pdf/bercovitz_academic_entrepreneurs.pdf .

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175–188.

Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35.

BIS (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills). (2011). Innovation and research strategy and growth. London: The Stationery Office Limited.

Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1224–1228.

Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1996). Participation of life science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine, 335(23), 1734–1739.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16(2), 101–118.

Butler, L. (2007). Assessing university research: A plea for a balanced approach. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 565–574.

Calderini, M., & Franzoni, C. (2004). Is academic patenting detrimental to high quality research? An empirical analysis of the relationship between scientific careers and patent applications. CESPRI working paper 162. Milan: Bocconi University.

Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information. Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.

Clarke, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Kidlington: Pergamon.

Cook, R. D., & Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. London: Chapman and Hall.

Coryn, C. L. S., Hattie, J. A., Scriven, M., & Hartmann, D. J. (2007). Models and mechanisms for evaluating government-funded research: An international comparison. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 437–457.

D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.

Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521.

Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.

DIUS. (2008). Innovation nation. London: HM Stationary Office.

Donovan, C. (2007). Testing novel quantitative indicators of research quality, esteem and user engagement: An economics pilot study. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 231–242.

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive-effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.

Fini, R., Grimalid, R., & Sobrero, M. (2009). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 380–402.

Florida, R. L., & Cohen, W. M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In: L.M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, R.L. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge. University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30.

Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 843–863.

Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). Impact of collaborative research on academic science. Science and Public Policy, 27(1), 65–73.

Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T., & Zaichenko, S. (2009). Towards a new role of universities in Russia: Prospects and limitations. Science and Public Policy, 36, 121–126.

Gray, D. O., Lindblad, M., & Rudolph, J. (2011). Industry–university research centers: A multivariate analysis of member retention. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 247–254.

Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.

HEFCE. (2006). Strategic plan 2006–11. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

HM Government. (2011). Government response to the hargreaves review of intellectual property and growth. Newport Wales: UK Intellectual Property Office. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/g/11-1199-government-response-to-hargreaves-review .

Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Patent licensing and the research university. Cambridge: NBER.

Kostoff, R. N. (1998). The use and misuse of citation analysis in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 43(1), 27–43.

Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2007). Incentives and invention in universities (CEP discussion paper no 729). London: London School of Economics.

Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.

Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review on business university collaboration. London: HMSO.

Larsen, M. T. (2008). Too close for comfort? The effect of university–industry collaboration on the scientific performance of university professors. Paper presented at the CAS workshop on the changing role of public sector research in innovation, 26–28 March 2008. Lysebu, Oslo, Norway: CAS.

Larsen, W. A., & McCreary, S. J. (1972). The use of partial residual plots in regression analysis. Technometrics, 14(3), 781–790.

Lee, S. Y. (1996). ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 25, 843–863.

Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 233–245.

MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36, 435–444.

Mahdi, S., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2008). Citation counts: Are they good predictors of RAE scores? A bibliometric analysis of RAE 2001. AIM report, February 2008. London: AIM.

Mansfield, E., & Lee, J. Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.

Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 353–364.

Martin, B. R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). The origin and evolution of the university species. VEST Journal for Science and Technology Studies, 13, 9–34.

Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12, 61–90.

Martin, S., & Scott, J. T. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29, 437–447.

Meyer, M., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the “value” of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for third stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415–440.

Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.

Mingers, J., Evangelia, A. E., & Lipitakis, C. G. (2010). Counting the citations: A comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management. Scientometrics, 85, 613–625.

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

Moed, H. F. (2007). The future of research evaluation rests with an intelligent combination of advanced metrics and transparent peer review. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 474–583.

Moed, H. F., Glanzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post Bayh-Dole rise of patenting universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13–19.

Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471.

Nightingale, P., & Scott, A. (2007). Peer review and the relevance gap: Ten suggestions for policy-makers. Science and Public Policy, 34(8), 453–553.

Norris, M., & Oppenheim, C. (2003). Citation counts and the research assessment exercise V: Archaeology and the 2001 RAE. Journal of Documentation, 59(6), 709–730.

OECD. (2002). Benchmarking industry–science relationships. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2003). Turning science into business, patenting and licensing at public research organisations. Paris: OECD.

Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32, 1081–1104.

Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.

Phelan, T. J. (1999). A compendium of issues for citation analysis. Scientometrics, 45(1), 117–136.

Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34, 1028–1042.

Renault, C. S. (2006). Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(2), 227–239.

Schankerman, M. (2007). Harnessing success: Incentives for invention and technology transfer in universities. CentrePiece Autumn, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp231.pdf .

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.

Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: The assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 529–540.

Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489–504.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21, 303–339.

Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). Who’s patenting in the university? Evidence from the survey of doctorate recipients. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 61(2), 71–99.

Tang, P., Weckowska, D., Hobday, M., & Campos, A. (2009). Managing intellectual property in universities: Patents and the protection failure problem. A report prepared for the Gatsby Charitable Foundation. London: Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

Thursby, G., & Thursby, M. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48, 90–104.

Thursby, G., & Thursby, M. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university–industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.

Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Faculty participation in licensing: Implications for research. Research Policy, 40, 20–29.

Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Leeuwen, T. N. (2002). Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics, 54(3), 381–397.

Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmermann, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33, 425–441.

Van Raan, A. F. J. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North-Holland.

Warry, P. (2007). Increasing the economic impact of research councils. A report of the research council economic impact group to the director general of science and innovation. London: UK Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Business, Skills and Universities.

Whitley, R. (2007). The changing governance of the public sciences: The consequences of research evaluation systems. In R. Whitley, J. Glaser, & K. Barker (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht: Springer.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record