Knowledge flows from public science to industrial technologies

Wang, Lili; Li, Zexia

doi:10.1007/s10961-019-09738-9

Cited by 25 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Campbell and colleagues also found that the odds of research uptake in the patent literature was positively and significantly related to the multidisciplinarity of research teams on scientific papers, accounting for field of research and a number of additional variables (Campbell, Struck, Tippett, & Roberge, 2017). Wang and Li found similar results looking at the effect of the scope of integrated knowledge on uptake in patents (L. Wang & Li, 2018).…”

Section: Bibliometric Characterisation Of Xdr Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 60%

A large-scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the novel Overton altmetrics database

Pinheiro¹,

Vignola-Gagné²,

Campbell³

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-disciplinary research (multi-/inter-disciplinarity) is incentivised by funding agencies to foster research outcomes addressing complex societal challenges. This study focuses on the link between crossdisciplinary research and its uptake in a broad set of policy-related documents. Using the new policyoriented database Overton, matched to Scopus, logistic regression was used in assessing this relationship in publications from FP7- and H2020-supported projects. Cross-disciplinary research was captured through two lenses at the paper level, namely from the disciplinary diversity of contributing authors (DDA) and of cited references (DDR). DDA increased the likelihood that publications were cited in policy documents, with DDR possibly making a contribution, but only when publications result from the work of few authors. Citations to publications captured by Overton were found to originate in scientific advice documents, rather than in legislative or executive records. Our approach enables testing in a general way the assumption underlying many funding programmes, namely that cross-disciplinary research will increase the policy relevance of research outcomes. Findings suggest that research assessments could benefit from measuring uptake in policy-related literature, following additional characterisation of the Overton database; of the science-policy interactions it captures; and of the contribution of these interactions within the larger policymaking process. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00137

show abstract

Section: Bibliometric Characterisation Of Xdr Research Practicesmentioning

confidence: 60%

A large-scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the novel Overton altmetrics database

Pinheiro¹,

Vignola-Gagné²,

Campbell³

2021

Quantitative Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter was defined as a process by which science and technology produced by public institutions in the peripheries (or semi-peripheries) is monetized in core countries, generally by companies that monopolize access to knowledge [ 5 , 29 , 30 ]. A way to measure knowledge extractivism is the identification of blind transfer of knowledge, i.e., the citation of scientific publications in patents where the former’s authors are not among patent co-owners and often are not even aware of the existence of such patents [ 31 , 32 ]. A concrete example of this form of knowledge extractivism concerns COVID-19 related papers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET

Testoni¹,

Gagnon²,

Rikap³

et al. 2022

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The latter was defined as a process by which science and technology produced by public institutions in the peripheries (or semi-peripheries) is monetized in core countries, generally by companies that monopolize access to knowledge [8,30,31]. A way to measure knowledge extractivism is the identification of blind transfer of knowledge, i.e., the citation of scientific publications in patents where the former’s authors are not among patent co-owners and often are not even aware of the existence of such patents [32,33]. A concrete example of this form of knowledge extractivism concerns COVID-19 related papers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET

Carrillo

Testoni

Gagnon

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPrevious research within the field of health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) reported that its prevailing research agenda is determined by leading academic institutions and big pharma companies, prioritizing the exploration of novel pharmacological interventions over research on the socio-environmental determinants of disease. Unlike previous studies, which have relied primarily on qualitative analyses, the aim of this investigation is to quantitatively explore if that prevailing international research agenda influences research in semi-peripheral countries and to which extent.MethodsWe used the Web of Science database and the CorText platform to proxy the HBMS research agenda of a prestigious research institution from Latin America: Argentina’s National Research Council (CONICET). We conducted a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 16,309 HBMS scientific articles whereby CONICET was among the authors’ affiliations. The content of CONICET’s agenda was depicted through co-occurrence network maps of the most prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. We compared our findings with previous reports on the international HBMS research agenda.ResultsIn line with the results previously reported for the prevailing international agenda, we found that multi-terms linked to molecular biology and cancer research hegemonize CONICET’s HBMS research agenda, whereas multi-terms connecting HBMS research with socio-environmental cues are marginal. However, we also found differences with the international agenda: CONICET’s HBMS agenda shows a marginal presence of multi-terms linked to translational medicine, while multi-terms associated with categories such as pathogens, plant research, agrobiotechnology, and food industry are more represented than in the prevailing agenda.ConclusionsIn line with the academic dependency theory, CONICET’s HBMS research agenda shares topics, priorities, and methodologies with the prevailing HBMS international research agenda. However, CONICET’s HBMS research agenda is internally heterogeneous, appearing to be mostly driven by a combination of elements that not only reflect academic dependency but also economic dependency.

show abstract

Knowledge flows from public science to industrial technologies

Cited by 25 publications

References 50 publications

A large-scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the novel Overton altmetrics database

A large-scale validation of the relationship between cross-disciplinary research and its uptake in policy-related documents, using the novel Overton altmetrics database

Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET

Academic dependency: the influence of the prevailing international biomedical research agenda on Argentina’s CONICET

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About