7,612
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Agrawal Henderson (2002) - Putting Patents In Context Exploring Knowledge Transfer From Mit (view source)
Revision as of 19:14, 29 September 2020
, 19:14, 29 September 2020no edit summary
{{Article
|Has page=Agrawal Henderson (2002) - Putting Patents In Context Exploring Knowledge Transfer From Mit
|Has bibtex key=
|Has article title=Putting Patents In Context Exploring Knowledge Transfer From Mit
|Has author=Agrawal Henderson
|Has year=2002
|In journal=
|In volume=
|In number=
|Has pages=
|Has publisher=
}}
*This page is referenced in [[BPP Field Exam Papers]]
===Patenting as preditor predictor of publishing===
Patenting has a slight negative correlation, not statistically significant, with publishing. However, patents are positive significant predictors of citations (i.e. patents predict research quality). The resutls are estimated using three one-year lag variables. Granger causality tests (in both directions) suggest that patenting and publishing are independent.
===Substitute or Complement===
Generally basic research is considered a substitute for more applied work in commercial settings. The same is feared in academic settings. However, neither patenting or publishing were generally found to be the motivation for research agendas in interviews. Although a small group of faculty do patent much more proportionately than their peers, on average there is no negative correlation. The correlation between patents and citations (to pubs) might reflect that the research can be immediately applied. But citation counts include both academic and commercial, so the paper concludes that patenting "may actually be a complement to fundamental research".
