Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaboration patterns in patent networks and their relationship with the transfer of technology: the case study of the CSIC patents

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this article is to observe differences between research areas when it comes to establish collaboration ties with local, national or international partners. It also intends to determine in what extent the collaboration can influence the patent transfer. A collaboration network between CSIC researchers and their external collaborators was built. Several statistical tests were used to find significant differences between research areas. A multiple regression model was also utilized in order to know what type of collaboration is more successful to transfer a patent. The results show that there are two well defined groups. A “Bio” group with a high international collaboration pattern but less national participation; and a “Physicist” group supported by a high proportion of national partners but with few international connections. The regression analysis found that the national collaboration is the variable that most increase the patent transfer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal, A. (2000). Importing scientific inventions: Direct interaction, geography and economic performance. Mimeo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33, 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boccardelli, P., Leone, M. I., Magnusson, M., & Reichstein, T. (2010). Fuel on the invention funnel: Technology licensing-in, antecedents and invention. [working paper]. Aalborg: DRUID. http://www3.druid.dk/wp/20100013.pdf.

  • Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield. NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyack, K. W., Klavans, R., & Börner, K. (2005). Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSIC. (2006). Plan de Actuación 2006–2009. Madrid: CSIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 54–64.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J. D., & Carpenter, M. P. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 481–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godoe, H. (2000). Innovation regimes, R&D and radical innovations in telecommunications. Research Policy, 29, 1033–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goktepe, D. (2006). Identification of university inventors and university patenting patterns at Lund University: Conceptual, methodological & empirical findings. Copenhagen, Denmark: DRUID winter conference. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1628/1/MPRA_paper_1628.pdf.

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskall, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. G. (2009). What affects a patent’s value? An analysis of variables that affect technological, direct economic and indirect economic value: An exploratory conceptual approach. Scientometrics, 79(3), 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., Llerena, P., McKelvey, M., & Sanditov, B. (2008). Academic patenting in Europe: New evidence from the KEINS database. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008) Guest authors or ghost inventors? Inventorship attribution in academic patents. The 25th DRUID celebration conference 2008 on entrepreneurship and innovation, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/msi/_docs/workshops/2008-04-24.pdf.

  • Lowe, R. A. (2002). Entrepreneurship and information asymmetry: Theory and evidence from the University of California. Working paper. 11/25/02, http://littlehurt.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/wp/2003-09.pdf.

  • McCarthy, J. T., Schecter, R. E., & Franklyn, D. J. (2004). McCarthy’s desk encyclopedia of intellectual property (3rd ed.). Washington: The Bureau of National Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: An exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61(3), 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The geographic reach of market and non-market channels of technology transfer: Comparing citations and licenses of university patents. NBER working paper series, w8568. http://dimetic.dime-eu.org/dimetic_files/MoweryZiedonis2004%20University%20Licenses%201.pdf.

  • Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2010). La participación española en los programas europeos: Análisis estructural del área de salud del 6º Programa Marco. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 33(2), 287–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2004). Networks of innovations. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. de S. (1986). Little science, big science…and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapsalis, E. (2007). From science to license: An exploratory analysis of the value of academic patents, working papers CEB 07-018.RS, Universite Libre de Bruxelles. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be:8443/dspace/bitstream/2013/53932/1/RePEc_sol_wpaper_07-018.pdf.

  • Vinding, A. L. (2002). Interorganizational diffusion and transformation of knowledge in the process of product innovation, Ph. D. thesis. Denmark: Aalborg University http://www.business.aau.dk/~alv/Vinding-Dissertation.pdf.

  • Yoshikane, F. (2006). Comparative analysis of co-authorship networks considering authors’ roles in collaboration: Differences between the theoretical and application areas. Scientometrics, 68(3), 643–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. R&D Unit, CSIC, Serrano, 113, 28006, Madrid, Spain

    José Luis Ortega

Authors
  1. José Luis Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Luis Ortega.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortega, J.L. Collaboration patterns in patent networks and their relationship with the transfer of technology: the case study of the CSIC patents. Scientometrics 87, 657–666 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0363-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0363-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation