|
on Innovation |
| By: | Czarnitzki, Dirk; GlÃÂÃÂÃÂänzel, Wolfgang; Hussinger, Katrin |
| Abstract: | The increasing commercialization of university discoveries has initiated a controversy on the impacts for future scientific research. It has been argued that an increasing orientation towards commercialization may have a negative impact on more fundamental research efforts in science. Several scholars have therefore analyzed the relationship between publication and patenting activity of university researchers, and most articles report positive correlations. However, most studies do not account for heterogeneity of patenting activities ranging from university patents to corporate patents. While the former may have closer links to basic research, this is not what we expect from the latter. We argue that such efforts will indeed distract scientists from other activities, as collaborations with companies are usually assumed to have an applied character and do not necessarily coincide with basic research tasks. This paper investigates the incidence of patenting and publishing distinguishing between different types of patents for a large sample of professors active in Germany. Our results show that, while university patents as well as patents assigned to not-for-profit institutions complement publication quantity and quality, corporate patents yield negative effects. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurial universities, academic inventors, industry-science linkages, patents, technology transfer |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:zbw:zewdip:5687&r=ino |
| By: | MassÃÂÃÂÃÂón Guerra, JosÃÂÃÂÃÂé Luis |
| Abstract: | This paper analyzes the role of entrepreneurship capital as a new explanatory factor of Spanish Labor Productivity of Economic Sectors. Based on the Audretsch and KeilbachÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂs Model (2004a) that measure the capacity of generating new enterprises, the methodology incorporates this capacity as a new ÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂcapitalÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂàinto a Cobb-Douglas Production Function (1928). Using secondary data from 75 Spanish economic sectors and supported by Resource Based View, Dynamic Capacities, and Endogenous Growth Theories, the results reveals that the creation of small enterprises shows a strong impact in the productivity and the sectorial Spanish growth. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurship Capital; Economic Growth; Economic Development; Knowledge Capital |
| JEL: | R11 M13 O47 |
| Date: | 2007–07–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:4073&r=ino |
| By: | Ramanuajm, Padmanabha |
| Abstract: | Geert Hofstede presented statistical evidence purporting to identify intercultural co-operation and its importance for survival in his scholarship work ÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂcultures and organizationsÃÂâÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂ. This article presents a study, which describes how differences in national culture can affect or influence the participation of programmers who produce open source software (OSS). The four important dimensions of national cultures considered by Hofstede model namely Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism Index (IAV), Masculinity-Feminity Index (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) are selected and correlated with the Geographical Distribution of Developers Index (GDD) for testing the above hypothesis. It is suggested that there exists some correlation between the cultural factors and the demographics of programmers who participate in the open source movement. Finally, the manner in which these cultural factors impinge on the incentives of the programmers who are engaged in open source movement by writing codes for free are also discussed. |
| Keywords: | Open Source Movement; FLOSS; Culture Difference and Hofstede Model |
| JEL: | K10 L19 L17 L10 K19 |
| Date: | 2007–07–16 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:4182&r=ino |
| By: | Wright, Malcolm; Armstrong, J. Scott |
| Abstract: | The prevalence of faulty citations impedes the growth of scientific knowledge. Faulty citations include omissions of relevant papers, incorrect references, and quotation errors that misreport findings. We discuss key studies in these areas. We then examine citations to Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, one of the most frequently cited papers from the Journal of Marketing Research, as an exploratory study to illustrate these issues. This paper is especially useful in testing for quotation errors because it provides specific operational recommendations on adjusting for nonresponse bias; therefore, it allows us to determine whether the citing papers properly used the findings. By any number of measures, those doing survey research fail to cite this paper and, presumably, make inadequate adjustments for nonresponse bias. Furthermore, even when the paper was cited, 49 of the 50 studies that we examined reported its findings improperly. The inappropriate use of statistical-significance testing led researchers to conclude that nonresponse bias was not present in 76 percent of the studies in our sample. Only one of the studies in the sample made any adjustment for it. Judging from the original paper, we estimate that the study researchers should have predicted nonresponse bias and adjusted for 148 variables. In this case, the faulty citations seem to have arisen either because the authors did not read the original paper or because they did not fully understand its implications. To address the problem of omissions, we recommend that journals include a section on their websites to list all relevant papers that have been overlooked and show how the omitted paper relates to the published paper. In general, authors should routinely verify the accuracy of their sources by reading the cited papers. For substantive findings, they should attempt to contact the authors for confirmation or clarification of the results and methods. This would also provide them with the opportunity to enquire about other relevant references. Journal editors should require that authors sign statements that they have read the cited papers and, when appropriate, have attempted to verify the citations. |
| Keywords: | citation errors; evidence-based research; nonresponse bias; quotation errors; surveys. |
| JEL: | Y8 C81 B4 |
| Date: | 2007–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:4149&r=ino |