Suchergebnisse

Successful innovation depends on complementary competencies in networks of producers, users, and governmental bodies. The effects of complementarities within innovation networks are modeled using Kauffman's NK-model. From the model, the hypothesis is derived that producers, users, and governments self-organize in specialized innovation networks: producers of particular technologies increasingly focus on particular user markets in particular countries. Data on 863 aircraft models (1909–1997) show these strong specialization patterns in the post-war period. Policy implications are indicated emphasizing the recent rise in transnational collaborations, which can be understood as a means of escaping historical specialization patterns.

This study shows for eight science-based industries that the citation impact of research collaboration is higher for international collaboration than for national and regional collaboration. A further analysis of institutional affiliations shows that university-industry-government collaborations profit from being organized at the regional scale only in the cases of biotechnology and organic fine chemistry. The alleged importance of physical proximity for successful interaction between university, industry and government thus is not robust across industries. We discuss the policy implications that follow.

This study shows for eight science-based industries that the citation impact of research collaboration is higher for international collaboration than for national and regional collaboration. A further analysis of institutional affiliations shows that university-industry-government collaborations profit from being organised at the regional scale only in the cases of biotechnology and organic fine chemistry. The alleged importance of physical proximity for successful interaction between university, industry and government thus is not robust across industries. We discuss the policy implications that follow.

In economic theory, one can distinguish between variety as a source of regional knowledge spillovers, called Jacobs externalities, and variety as a portfolio protecting a region from external shocks. We argue that Jacobs externalities are best measured by related variety (within sectors), while the portfolio argument is better captured by unrelated variety (between sectors). We introduce a methodology based on entropy measures to compute related variety and unrelated variety. Using regional data for the period 1996-2002 for The Netherlands, we find that Jacobs externalities enhance employment growth, while unrelated variety dampens unemployment growth. Implications for regional policy follow. Dans la théorie économique, la variété peut se présenter de manière distincte suivant qu'elle constitue une source de retombées de connaissances régionales, appelées externalités de Jacobs, ou un portefeuille qui protège la région des chocs externes. Nous affirmons que la variété intrasectorielle (au sein des secteurs) permet de mieux mesurer les externalités de Jacobs alors que la notion de portefeuille est mieux saisie par la variété intersectorielle (entre les secteurs). Nous présentons une méthodologie fondée sur des mesures d'entropie afin d'estimer ces deux types de variété. À partir des données régionales des Pays-Bas sur la période 1996-2002, nous constatons que les externalités de Jacobs augmentent la croissance de l'emploi, alors que la variété intersectorielle atténue celle du chômage. S'ensuivent des implications pour la politique régionale.

Collaboration and the exchange of knowledge are supposedly made easier by geographical proximity because of the tacit character of knowledge. Recently a number of scholars' criticised this view on geographical proximity as being oversimplified and argued that the precise role of geographical proximity for knowledge exchange and collaboration still remains unclear. This paper analyses the role of geographical proximity for collaborative scientific research in science-based technologies between universities, companies and governmental research institutes. We test the hypothesis that the collaboration between different kinds of organisations is more geographically localised than collaboration between organisations that are similar due to institutional proximity. Using data on co-publications, collaborations patterns are analysed and the hypothesis is confirmed.

Research collaboration is generally motivated by quality enhancement. The networks underlying collaborative knowledge production also serve as vehicles of knowledge diffusion. Both aspects are expected to contribute to the citation impact of publications. We analyse knowledge production in European biotechnology for the period 1988–2002 focusing on the role of research collaboration. Different aspects of research collaboration are taken into account simultaneously to assess their relative importance. We distinguish between the number of contributing authors and addresses as to differentiate between the effect of the collaboration between individuals and between organizations. We further distinguish between different spatial scales of collaboration (national, European, international) and between different institutional types of collaboration (between academia, outside academia, and hybrid). We find evidence that the diffusion of scientific knowledge, as measured by citation rate, is dependent on both intra- and inter-organisational characteristics. An important finding has also been that the further differences in citation impact can be related to the geographical scale of collaboration with the European scale being most successful. Furthermore, country-fixed effects suggest that the European Union, though successful as a geographical scale of collaboration, still harbours many national varieties of knowledge production.

Joint Ph.D. projects are a prominent form of research collaboration, connecting universities to firms and public research organizations. When entering into such collaborations, partners need to make choices regarding a project's governance. This paper investigates how a university and its partners govern such projects, including decision-making, daily management and disclosure policies. Earlier studies show that shared governance modes have had a higher success rate than centralized governance modes. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of the 191 joint Ph.D. projects we investigated opted for centralized rather than shared governance. Our findings show that: (1) geographical and/or cognitive distance render the adoption of a shared governance mode less likely; (2) the partner controlling critical resources tends to centralize governance, and (3) partnering firms are more likely to put restrictions on publication output than public research organizations. We therefore recommend that universities and their partners take these aspects into account when selecting such projects.

Joint PhD projects are a promising form of research collaboration, connecting universities to firms and public research organizations. Entering into such collaborations, however, requires decisions in terms of governance. This paper investigates how a university and its partners govern such projects, including decision-making, daily management and disclosure policies. Earlier studies show that shared governance modes have had a higher success rate than centralized governance modes. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of the 191 joint PhD projects we investigated opted for centralized rather than shared governance. Our findings show that: (i) geographical and cognitive distance render the adoption of a shared governance mode less likely; (ii) the partner controlling critical resources tends to centralize governance, and (iii) partnering firms are more likely to put restrictions on publication output than public research organizations. We therefore recommend that universities and their partners take these aspects into account when selecting such projects.

We analyse inter-regional research collaboration as measured by scientific publications and patents with multiple addresses, covering 1316 NUTS3 regions in 29 European countries. The estimates of gravity equations show the effects of geographical and institutional distance on research collaboration. We also find evidence for the existence of elite structures between excellence regions and between capital regions. The results suggest that current EU science policy to stimulate research collaboration is legitimate, but doubt the compatibility between EU science policy and EU cohesion policy.

The Framework Programmes (FPs) funded by the European Commission support transnational research collaborations in order to make the European Research Area more competitive. Some have raised concerns that the FPs compromise the cohesion policies of the European Commission aimed at reducing income disparities between European regions. We investigate whether existing scientific collaborations between European Union (EU) subnational regions—as captured by co-authored publications—are conducive for acquiring FP funding, and whether FP funding, in turn, stimulates subsequent co-publication activity between pairs of EU regions. Our results indicate that previous co-publication activity only has a minor effect on being funded. We also find that the effect of funding on co-publication activity is especially significant for regional pairs that did not intensively co-publish before participation. The results suggest that the returns to FP funding are highest when involving scientifically lagging regions. In this respect, the current FP policy is in line with cohesion policy.

Background Pharmaceutical trials are mainly initiated by sponsors and investigators in the United States, Western Europe and Japan. However, more and more patients are enrolled in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. The involvement of patients in new geographical settings raises questions about scientific and ethical integrity, especially when experience with those settings is lacking at the level of trial management. We therefore studied to what extent the geographical shift in patient enrolment is anticipated in the composition of trial management teams using the author nationalities on the primary outcome publication as an indicator of leadership. Methods and Findings We conducted a cohort-study among 1,445 registered trials in www.clinicaltrials.gov that could be matched with a primary outcome publication using clinical trial registry numbers listed in publications. The name of the sponsor and the enrolment countries were extracted from all registrations. The author-addresses of all authors were extracted from the publications. We searched the author-address of all publications to determine whether enrolment countries and sponsors listed on registrations also appeared on a matched publication. Of all sponsors, 80.1% were listed with an author-address on the publication. Of all enrolment countries, 50.3% appeared with an author-address on the publication. The listing of enrolment countries was especially low for industry-funded trials (39.9%) as compared to government (90.4%) and not-for-profit funding (93.7%). We found that listing of enrolment countries in industry-funded trials was higher for traditional research locations such as the United States (98.2%) and Japan (72.0%) as compared to nontraditional research locations such as Poland (27.3%) and Mexico (14.1%). Conclusions Despite patient enrolment efforts, the involvement of researchers from nontraditional locations in trial management as measured by their contribution to manuscript writing is modest. This division of labor has significant implications for the scientific and ethical integrity of global clinical research.