|
on Sociology of Economics |
|
Issue of 2013‒11‒02
three papers chosen by Jonas Holmström Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration |
| By: | Joshua S. Gans; Fiona E. Murray; Scott Stern |
| Abstract: | This paper provides a theoretical investigation of the tension over knowledge disclosure between firms and their scientific employees. While empirical research suggests that scientists exhibit a ‘taste for science,’ such open disclosures can limit a firm’s competitive advantage. To explore how this tension is resolved we focus on the strategic interaction between researchers and firms bargaining over whether (and how) knowledge will be disclosed. We evaluate four disclosure strategies: secrecy, patenting, open science (scientific publication) and patent-paper pairs providing insights into the determinants of the disclosure strategy of a firm. We find that patents and publications are complementary instruments facilitating the disclosure of knowledge and, counter-intuitively, that stronger IP protection regimes are likely to drive openness by firms. |
| JEL: | M55 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2013–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:19560&r=sog |
| By: | Gabriella Bertocchi (Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia); Alfonso Gambardella (Università Bocconi); Tullio Jappelli (University of Naples Federico II, CSEF and CEPR); Carmela A. Nappi (ANVUR); Franco Peracchi (Università di Roma Tor Vergata) |
| Abstract: | A relevant question for the organization of large scale research assessments is whether bibliometric evaluation and informed peer review where reviewers know where the work was published, yield similar results. It would suggest, for instance, that less costly bibliometric evaluation might - at least partly - replace informed peer review, or that bibliometric evaluation could reliably monitor research in between assessment exercises. We draw on our experience of evaluating Italian research in Economics, Business and Statistics, where almost 12,000 publications dated 2004-2010 were assessed. A random sample from the available population of journal articles shows that informed peer review and bibliometric analysis produce similar evaluations of the same set of papers. Whether because of independent convergence in assessment, or the influence of bibliometric information on the community of reviewers, the implication for the organization of these exercises is that these two approaches are close substitutes. |
| Keywords: | Research Assessment, Peer Review, Bibliometric Evaluation, VQR |
| Date: | 2013–10–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:sef:csefwp:344&r=sog |
| By: | E. Roy Weintraub |
| Abstract: | MIT emerged from “nowhere” in the 1930s to its place as one of the three or four most important sites for economic research by the mid-1950s. A conference held at Duke University in April 2013 examined how this occurred. In this paper the author argues that the immediate postwar period saw a collapse – in some places slower, in some places faster – of the barriers to the hiring of Jewish faculty in American colleges and universities. And more than any other elite private or public university, particularly Ivy League universities, MIT welcomed Jewish economists. |
| Keywords: | MIT, Jewish faculty, anti-Semitism, Samuelson |
| JEL: | B2 B22 O4 O11 E12 E13 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hec:heccee:2013-5&r=sog |