Scientometrics (2010) 83:403–421

DOI 10.1007/s11192-009-0075-1

Academic research commercialization and knowledge

production and diffusion: the moderating effects
of entrepreneurial commitment

Phil Yihsing Yang Æ Yuan-Chieh Chang

Received: 24 February 2009 / Published online: 11 July 2009

Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Abstract This paper empirically examines the relationship between research commer-
cialization, entrepreneurial commitment, and knowledge production and diffusion in
academia. Through a dataset of 229 academic patent inventors, this paper reveals that the
effects of research commercialization on publication quantity, application-oriented
research, and disclosure delay are moderated by the entrepreneurial commitment of faculty
members. This paper concludes that encouraging entrepreneurial commitment of faculty
members may possibly drive academics away from their traditional approaches in pro-
ducing and diffusing knowledge.

Keywords Research commercialization
Patenting and licensing
Academic routine

Entrepreneurial commitment

Introduction

Freeman and Soete (1997) explain that science has emerged as an alternative engine of
economic growth in addition to the classic triumvirate of land, labor and capital. Under the
influence of a knowledge-based economy, academic research institutions are no longer
simply the location of education, research and public services. Academic research insti-
tutions play a vital role in regional economic development and employment creation
(Chrisman et al. 1995; Etzkowitz 2003). The description of ‘‘entrepreneurial universities’’
has increasingly been used in relation to the partnership of technology commercialization
in academia (Branscomb et al. 1999; Etzkowitz 1998).
More socio-economic developments in academic research institutions have burgeoned
such as devolution of intellectual property rights (IPRs), the establishment of technology

P. Y. Yang
National Taichung University, Taichung, Taiwan
e-mail: ysyang@ntu.edu.tw

Y.-C. Chang (&)

National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
e-mail: yucchang@mx.nthu.edu.tw

123
404 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

transfer offices (TTOs), incubator facilities, and spin-offs. Prior research has shown that
commercially oriented academic activities, such as patenting and licensing, have been
important to the growth of semiconductor, computer software, and biotechnology indus-
tries (Sanz-Menéndez and Cruz-Castrol 2003). The Silicon Valley and Route 128 in the
U.S. have frequently been mentioned as the most successful areas of high-tech venturing
where the abundant academic research capacity contributes to the development of the
industrial system (Mowery and Ziedonis 2002; Shane 2002). A greater emphasis on
exploiting research results can be seen in managerial changes among academics with
respect to university–industry collaborative projects (Van Looy et al. 2006).
The development of academic entrepreneurship enhances the university and faculty
members’ propensity in terms of opportunity cognition (McKelvey 1997), university–
industry partnerships (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1997), and diversified sources of
research funding (Geuna 1999). Despite increasing the importance of academic research
results as sources of industrial innovation, the impact of research commercialization on
academic research development is not completely understood. The ‘‘anti-commons’’ per-
spective argues that the expansion of IPRs (mostly in the form of patents) is ‘‘privatizing’’
the scientific commons, and limiting scientific progress (Argyres and Liebskind 1998;
Heller and Eisenberg 1998). However, few researchers have addressed the relationship
between research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion.
Several research gaps are found in the previous investigations. First, the qualitative
literature provides limited explanation on how academic entrepreneurial activities impact
on the knowledge base (Lehrer and Asakawa 2004). Second, prior research has mainly
investigated the academic research commercialization in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, and
thus has not provided sufficient implication for the faculties in emerging economies
(Azagra-Caro et al. 2003; Florida and Cohen 1999; Shane 2004a). Third, prior research
mainly looked at spin-off/start-up company as the proxy of academic entrepreneurship
(Shane 2004b), which did not fully reflect the emerging entrepreneurial academia that
stressed patenting and licensing. Finally, Van Looy et al. (2006) argued that a reinforcing
relationship existed between the publication and patenting behavior of academic
researchers. However, they have not identified the influence of licensing behavior of
academic researchers. In order to bridge the above gaps in the literature, this study focuses
on the overall academic patent inventors in Taiwan and verifies the relationship between
patenting, licensing, and knowledge development.

Literature review

Academic research commercialization

Academic research institutions used to be subordinated wholly under government juris-

diction. Faculty members used to receive abundant research grants from the government to
support their innovative ideas. Facing gradual decline in government funding for research
and other activities, academic researchers have had to search for diversified supporting
sources and to develop mechanisms of technology transfer (Geuna 1999). The transition to
less dependence upon government support occurred most significantly in the U.K. during
the 1980s, but it can also be seen in the U.S., despite being partially hidden by an absolute
increase in government research funding (NSF 1999). In Taiwan, government funding has
been leveled off and industrial funding has been enhanced since 1999 (Table 1).

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 405

Table 1 Sources of research funds for universities in Taiwan

Year Industry (million % Government % Othersa % Total
NT$) (A) (A/D) (million NT$) (B) (B/D) (C) (C/D) (million NT$) (D)

1997 448 2.4 17,351 94.7 529 2.9 18,328

1998 596 2.8 20,244 95.1 451 2.1 21,291
1999 1,061 4.8 19,163 85.8 2,110 9.4 22,334
2000 992 4.1 20,463 85.1 2,593 10.8 24,047
2001 825 3.2 21,631 84.8 3,065 12.0 25,521
2002 899 3.3 23,628 85.5 3,110 11.3 27,637
2003 1,217 4.2 24,573 85.1 3,100 10.7 28,890
2004 1,565 5.2 25,316 83.4 3,469 11.5 30,350
a
Note: Others could be non-profit R&D organizations and foreign organizations
Source: The series of Indicators of Science and Technology from 1998 to 2005

Previous research argued that the Bayh–Dole Act in 1980 and related legislation in the
U.S. encouraged research institutions to conduct patenting (Nelson 2001; Shane 2004b)
and spin-off venturing (Mowery and Ziedonis 2002). Universities are required to make
every effort to ensure that the inventions of faculty members are brought into public use as
soon as practicable (Smith and Parr 2003). Thus, academic researchers are encouraged to
commercialize their intellectual capital into more material forms, such as royalties,
licensing income, and commercialization of IPRs for their institutions. Similarly, the
Taiwanese government enacted the Science and Technology Basic Law (STBL) in January
1999. The STBL lays out fundamental principles for the universities to exploit govern-
ment-funded research results. Table 2 shows that among Taiwan’s universities, patent
applications, patents issued, technology transfer, and licensing income have been generally
increased since the enactment of the STBL.
A general pathway of university research commercialization begins with a discovery or
invention by a university scientist in a laboratory (Wallmark 1997). The scientist files an
invention disclosure with the TTO or Technology License Office (TLO). The TTO/TLO
assists faculties in assessing and capitalizing on the economic potential of their research
results. At this point, university officials and external specialists may constitute a

Table 2 NSCs patenting and technology transfer activitiesa

Year NSCa

Number of Number of Technology Licensing income

patent applied patent issued transfer (cases) (NT$ million)

1997 223 n/a 16 n/a

1998 215 178 10 n/a
1999 199 213 14 15.7
2000 283 191 28 26.2
2001 161 105 32 38.2
2002 461 221 45 54.3
2003 480 183 90 122.0
2004 649 299 82 138.5
2005 635 307 95 148.3
a
The data is collected from the series of NSC Annual Review from 1998 to 2006

123
406 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

committee to decide whether to patent and transfer the intellectual property (Smith and
Parr 2003). The TTO/TLO may seek help from a professional patent attorney to work on
the draft of patent application (Crespi 2004). Specifically, academic inventors and industry
partners interested in the technology may provide sufficient justification for filing a patent.
Once a patent has been awarded, the TTO manager can market the IPR, sometimes with
the academic researcher’s input. More potential market value can be created through
licensing and transferring research results (Jensen and Thursby 2001). The increased
licensing was primarily due to an increased willingness of faculty and administrators to
license and an increased business reliance on external R&D (Balconi and Laboranti 2006).
Furthermore, university professors, technicians, or students may form wholly or partially
owned spin-off companies to manufacture and sell products to capture the derived benefits
(Mowery and Ziedonis 2002). The successful academic entrepreneurship in Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) is suggested to be contributed from its supporting organi-
zational mechanisms and policies such as TLO (O’Shea et al. 2007).

The evolving academic routines

Academic research institutions are acting as the main knowledge generators in contem-
porary society. Faculty members, regardless of their discipline, engage in three roles—
teaching, research, and public service. The social structure of science provides norms and
values to guide faculty members in conducting academic routines (Merton 1968; Mulkay
1976). The norms, standards, and values of faculty members reflect an organizational
culture that values creativity, innovation, and an individual’s contribution to advance the
knowledge frontier. Prior research argues that the primary motive of university scientists is
recognition within the scientific community, which emanates from publications in top-tier
journals, presentations at prestigious conferences, and governmental research grants
(Siegel et al. 2003).
Sociologists identify that the social functions of faculty members have shifted from
scholarly training and theoretical development, endless knowledge frontier and application
relevance, to wealth creation (Raine and Beukman 2002). The increased interactions
between universities and industry in the national innovation system change the internal
culture and norms of universities (Mowery and Sampat 2005). Comparatively, industry-
oriented research has greater potential for commercial applications than does academic
research that is conducted more for the purpose of the advancement of the knowledge
frontier (Siegel et al. 2004). Moreover, the fundamental principles of science are consid-
ered as ‘‘public goods’’ (McMillan et al. 2000, p. 4): they can be easily disseminated and
accessed across society and they exhibit positive externalities that make basic scientific
research worthy of public funding. The occupational identities of faculty members who
teach or work to expand the principles of basic science are defined around norms of sharing
and diffusing, rather than appropriating knowledge (Lehrer and Asakawa 2004).

Research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion

An increasing number of scientists have chosen a multiple disclosure choice, including the
option to publish research in academic literature and obtain IPRs over that knowledge
(Murray and Stern 2006). Prior research identifies that major concerns are derived from
different reward and incentive systems of academic research and private sector research
(Dasgupta and David 1994). Heller and Eisenberg (1998) suggested that the phenomenon
of ‘‘anti-commons’’ or ‘‘patent thicket’’ makes the acquisition of licenses too burdensome

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 407

to permit the pursuit of what would otherwise be scientifically worthwhile research.

Academic technology commercialization may be challenged by the academic researchers’
academic routines, institutional priorities, and faculty retention (Finkle and Deeds 2001).
Verspagen (2006) suggested that a negative impact on the open culture of science may
already be a reality in the European university system.
Prior research has differentiated outcomes on the relationship between research com-
mercialization and knowledge production. On the one hand, Van Looy et al. (2006) found
a reinforcing relationship between the publication and patenting behavior of academic
researchers. The patenting scientists are found to outperform their non-inventing peers in
terms of publication counts and citation frequency (Meyer 2006a). On the other hand, in
order to undertake applied research, university scientists have to spend a fixed amount of
time in keeping up with the latest scientific developments and absorbing other people’s
ideas (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Since almost all faculty members have teaching
responsibilities, many of them fear that participation in the protection and commerciali-
zation of IPRs is overly time-consuming (Smith and Parr 2003). Outreach partnership
jeopardizes a faculty member’s progress on her/his research agendas, as well as scholarly
development (Finkle and Deeds 2001). The exploitation of research results may increase a
researcher’s reluctance to share information or research materials with one another (Walsh
et al. 2005). This study argues that diverging arguments could be the result of the level of
entrepreneurial commitment by each faculty member. The preceding discussion suggests
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 The entrepreneurial commitment negatively moderates the relationship
between research commercialization and publication quantity.
Prior research identifies the differences in culture and strategic aims of academia and
industries in terms of motives, research orientation, and commercial attitudes (Howells
et al. 1998; Raine and Beukman 2002). The primary motivation that enables faculty
members to conduct technology transfer and commercialization is recognition within the
scientific community (Siegel et al. 2003). Nevertheless, industrial researchers are inter-
ested in generating patents and commercial products through cooperating with universities.
Nelson (2001) noted that managers and entrepreneurs usually do not share the academic
values of publishing results and sharing information with colleagues and the general
public. Therefore, the prospective financial gains from the exploitation of IPRs may induce
researchers to choose research projects on the basis of commercial potential rather than
scientific merit (Walsh et al. 2005). Faculty members with funding from industries
undertook significantly less basic research than researchers without such external funding
(Geuna and Nesta 2006). This study suggests the relationship between research commer-
cialization, entrepreneurial commitment and research orientation in the following:
Hypothesis 2 The entrepreneurial commitment positively moderates the relationship
between research commercialization and application-oriented research.
Due to the potential importance of research commercialization as the source of revenue
for the universities, faculty members must disclose their inventions to the TTOs/TLOs to
generate economic returns from the technology transfer (Siegel et al. 2003). Both the
inventor and laboratory management need to be interested for organizational resources to
be allocated to the commercialization of an idea (Duke 1995). A multifarious process of
technology examination often lingers and delays patenting and publication. Furthermore,
an emerging technology requires a longer development, which implies an even longer
delay before realizing profitability and extraction of value. Moreover, the industrial partner

123
408 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

may require an academic researcher to keep research results confidential, so publication

might be delayed and suppressed subject to collaborative agreement (Jensen and Thursby
2001). Walsh et al. (2005) empirically investigated biomedical research and suggested that
there is a significant lag of more than 3 years between scientific publication and patent
grant. The preceding discussion suggests the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 The entrepreneurial commitment positively moderates the relationship
between research commercialization and disclosure delay.

Methodology

Sampling

The sampling criteria focus on faculty members who receive patent grant(s) since they
have higher potential to commercialize research results. The original list of 474 faculty
members was collected from the Patent Database of Academic R&D Results, National
Science Council, Taiwan. Questionnaires have been distributed to faculty members
through a three-round postal survey. Also, this study compared respondents to non-
respondents in terms of number of patent grants and found no statistically significant
differences at the p \ 0.10 level. Therefore, this study is confident that non-response to our
questionnaires has not hindered our analysis. Finally, there were 229 valid questionnaires
providing an overall response rate of 48%.
There were 229 respondents including 135 full professors, 67 associate professors, 22
assistant professors, and 5 instructors or others. Moreover, the average academic work
experience for the respondents was 15.2 years. There were 103 respondents who had
served 11–20 years in academic posts. Based on the type of institution, 175 faculty
members had served at public research institutions, and 125 faculty members had served at
general universities. Based on the location of the institution, there were 82 faculty
members who had served in the general Taipei area. Sorted according to the field of
professional background, a total of 159 respondents specialized in the engineering field, 40
respondents were in the medical research fields, and 21 respondents were in natural science
research fields.

Questionnaire design

The content of the questionnaire mainly focused on the faculty member’s research pro-
duction and research commercialization. The questionnaires first went through pre-ques-
tionnaire interviews with eight faculty members who had numerous patent grants. These
interviews helped to improve the questions by refining the wordings and format from the
perspective of the faculty members.

Dependent variables

This study used the three parameters of publication quantity, research orientation, and
disclosure delay to measure university knowledge production and diffusion. Given the
discrete and non-negative nature of dependent variables used in this study, the appropriate
models are count data models, and a natural starting point of estimation is the Poisson
model (Cameron and Trivedi 1986). Moreover, this study used a 3-year estimation of

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 409

dependent variables to avoid the causality in using cross sectional data. Thus, this study
conducted Poisson regression analysis to verify the causes and consequences of academic
research development.

Publication quantity

Prior studies have argued that publication is an important mechanism for accelerating the
rate of technological innovation (Sorensen and Fleming 2004). Patents that reference
published materials receive more citations, primarily because their influence is diffused
faster in time and space (Nicolas and Mireille 2004). This study argues that the paper’s
publication implies the accumulation of a university knowledge base. Moreover, publi-
cation in the scientific literature often occurs within 6 months after initial submission to a
journal (Murray and Stern 2006). Data on the publication quantity of each faculty member
between 2003 and 2005 were obtained from the ISI Science Citation Index (SCI), Social
Science Citation Index (SSCI), and Engineering Information (EI) databases. These three
databases are excellent sources due to the fact that they cover a broad range of scientific
journals which fit well with the patent inventors.

Application-oriented research

Prior research argued that outreach partnership diverts faculty members’ research agenda
from a fundamental basis to applied areas (Finkle and Deeds 2001; Florida and Cohen
1999). This study argues that the practical application of academic research perceived by a
faculty member implies the diffusion of a university knowledge base. The application-
oriented research variable was measured by a Likert-type six-point scales, ranging from
extremely disagree to extremely agree. In order to comply with the sampling period for
other dependent variables, this study limited the time-frame of application-oriented
research to the period of 2003–2005.

Disclosure delay

Prior research argued that entrepreneurial activities might be negative for an academic
researcher’s research progress and scholarly development (Lach and Schankerman 2004).
Faculty members may prefer to exploit their research results for private interests rather
than disclose it for the public welfare. This study argues that the level of disclosure delay
perceived by a faculty member imply the diffusion of knowledge base. The disclosure
delay variable was measured by the estimated time lag (by year) between research com-
mercialization and paper submission for each faculty member.

Independent variables

Patent grant

Patents are often the major laboratory criteria in determining the development of an
innovation (Duke 1995). Patent grants were used as the measure of entrepreneurial activity
since they are considered the first step in the academic research commercialization
(Mowery and Ziedonis 2002). Moreover, patents are granted by area jurisdiction where
faculty members need to devote considerable efforts and costs in applying and maintaining

123
410 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

a patent. This annual variable aggregated the total number of domestic patents and foreign
patents (e.g., USPTO, EPO, and JPO) acquired by each faculty member during the period
of 2003–2005. A 3-year time range was chosen for the faculty members as a more accurate
reflection of the time lag caused by patent creation.

License creation and licensing income

Technology transfer from university to industry is viewed as the derivative of university–

industry cooperative projects. Specifically, licensing is a common approach for exploiting
academic research results for academic scientists (Di Gregorio and Shane 2003; Powers
and McDougall 2005). This paper measured annual licenses acquired by each faculty
member during the period of 2003–2005. In addition, this paper measured annual licensing
incomes acquired by each faculty member during the period of 2003–2005.

Moderating variable: entrepreneurial commitment

Conceptually, the faculty members have a varied level of entrepreneurial commitment in

research commercialization. Some faculty members work as industrial consultants and
provide the industrial partner with technological advice and assistance in terms of methods,
strategies, and implementations. Some faculty members transfer their academic research
results to provide a physical transfer and commercialization. Some faculty members, while
remaining at their academic positions, also establish spin-off and share ownership with
industrial partners to exploit research findings. Therefore, this study requested the hours in
a week each faculty member committed to industrial consultancy, technology transfers,
and spin-off activities between 2003 and 2005 as the proxy of entrepreneurial commitment.

Control variables

Individual researchers and institutions vary widely in their response to this dual knowledge
being disclosed through both publications and patents (Murray and Stern 2006). Walsh
et al. (2005) suggested that the anti-commons effect is particularly salient for researchers
within the public sector. This study controls the variables for researchers and institutions,
including professorship, academic experience, research field, and university type. Specif-
ically, dummy variables equal to one were given if the researcher was identified as a full
professor, had academic tenure of 10 years or more, had an engineering background, or
served in a public university.

Results

This study conducts the descriptive statistics of academic patenting and licensing by the
demographics of academic patent inventors in Taiwan. Table 3 indicates the research
commercialization of the respondents measured by patent grants and licensing activities
between 2003 and 2005. Specifically, the number of licenses and licensing incomes are
shown. The table shows that the respondents have a total of 808 patents, 227 licenses, and
NT$70,150,000 (approximately US$2,134,814) in licensing incomes within the 3-year
period. Specifically, the annual average number of patents for each faculty member was
1.18, and the annual average number of licenses was 0.33 in this period. The average

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 411

Table 3 Performance of research commercialization (2003–2005)

Demographics Category (N) Number of patent Number of Licensing
grant (mean) license (mean) incomea (mean)

Academic Full professor (135) 557 178 49,590

position (1.38) (0.44) (122)
Associate professor (67) 205 46 19,560
(1.02) (0.23) (97)
Assistant professor (22) 39 2 800
(0.59) (0.03) (12)
Instructor and others (5) 7 1 200
(0.46) (0.07) (13)
Academic 20 years or over (71) 216 72 22,110
experience (1.01) (0.34) (104)
11–20 years (103) 412 113 34,928
(1.33) (0.37) (113)
6–10 years (33) 120 31 9,692
(1.21) (0.31) (98)
5 years or below (22) 59 11 3,420
(0.89) (0.17) (52)
Research Natural science (21) 64 8 1,610
background (1.02) (0.13) (26)
Engineering (159) 617 204 56,000
(1.29) (0.43) (117)
Agriculture (6) 3 1 400
(0.17) (0.06) (22)
Medical (40) 122 14 12,140
(1.02) (0.12) (101)
Social science and others (3) 2 0 0
(0.22) (0) (0)
Type of Public (175) 583 150 61,236
university (1.11) (0.29) (117)
Private (54) 224 77 9,732
(1.38) (0.48) (60)
Total (229) 808 227 70,150
(1.18) (0.33) (102)
a
Including royalty (unit: NT$ thousand, US$1 equal to NT$32.86 in 2005)

amount of wealth creation in terms of licensing incomes and royalties was roughly
NT$102,000 in the same period.
In addition, the results show that the respondents who were full professors performed
better on the annual average number of patent grants, number of licenses, and licensing
income than did their counterparts of other academic status. The associate professors
ranked in second place for all of these items. Similarly, the results showed that the
respondents with 11–20 years of work experience performed better on the annual average
numbers of patents, number of licenses, and licensing income. Moreover, the respondents
who had worked for 20 years or longer performed better on the annual average number of
licenses and licensing income than did the group of faculty members who had served about
6–10 years.

123
412 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

Table 3 also shows that the faculty members with an engineering background had the
highest annual average number of patents, annual average number of licenses, and annual
average amount of licensing income among the professional backgrounds. Similarly, the
faculty members in the field of natural science nearly equaled the performance of those in
the medical field in creating the annual average number of patents and licenses. Never-
theless, the faculty members with a medical background outperformed those in the field of
natural science in the average annual amount of licensing income. Furthermore, the faculty
members working at private universities performed slightly better than those working at
public ones in terms of annual average number of patents and licenses. However, the
performance in the annual average licensing income for each faculty member working at
public universities was higher than for those working at private ones.
Table 4 shows that the respondents have in total published 1,937 papers within the 3-
year period. Specifically, the annual average number of papers published was 2.82. The
average self-reported application-oriented research and average time period for disclosure
delay were 3.21 on a 0–5 scale and 2.27 years respectively. In addition, the results show
that the respondents who were full professors performed better on the annual average
number of publications, the highest level of application orientation and disclosure delay
than did their counterparts of other academic status. Moreover, the group of most senior
faculty members performed better on the annual average number of papers published than
did the group of faculty members of other tenure. The respondents with work experience of
about 6–10 years showed the highest tendency on application orientation and disclosure
delay. And the faculty members of natural science research outperformed other categories
in publication quantity. The medical research faculty performed well on application ori-
entation and disclosure delay. The faculty member working at private universities per-
formed a little better than those working at public ones in annual average number of
publication, application orientation, and disclosure delay.
Table 5 shows the descriptive analysis of key variables in this study. The results show
that the variables of publication quantity, patent grant, license creation, and licensing
income are highly skewed. This study conducted a Pearson correlation analysis. Specifi-
cally, collinearity tests of the variables were made to delete the less important explanatory
variables or to replace them by other equivalent variables if the variance inflation factor
(VIF) exceeded 10 (Hair et al. 1998). Table 6 shows that the variables of patent grant,
license creation, and licensing income were significantly correlated with publication
quantity (p \ .01). The variable of license creation was statistically significant and neg-
atively correlated with disclosure delay (p \ .05). The variables of patent grant, license
creation, and licensing income were significantly correlated to themselves (p \ .01).
Moreover, faculty members who were full professors or those who had senior tenure were
significantly correlated with the number of publications (p \ .01). The level of entrepre-
neurial commitment was significantly correlated with publication quantity, applied-ori-
ented research, patenting, and licensing activities (p \ .05).
This study performed regression analysis on the research commercialization, entre-
preneurial commitment, and knowledge production and diffusion to test the research
hypotheses. Models 1, 4 and 7 include only the control variables, Models 2, 5 and 8 insert
the variables needed to test for the ‘‘main’’ effects, and Models 3, 6, and 9 include the
moderating variables (Table 7). Hypothesis 1 predicts that the relationship between
research commercialization and publication quantity would be negatively moderated by the
level of entrepreneurial commitment. As shown in Models 2 and 3, the coefficients for
patent grant, license creation, and licensing income are all statistically significant and
positive. Specifically, the entrepreneurial commitment variable generally shows

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 413

Table 4 Performance of knowledge production and diffusion (2003–2005)

Demographics Category (N) Papers published Applied research Disclosure
(mean) (mean) delay (mean)

Academic position Full professor (135) 1,450 476 340.14

(3.58) (3.53) (2.52)
Associate professor (67) 346 196.50 125.11
(1.72) (2.93) (1.87)
Assistant professor (22) 47 71 43.08
(0.71) (3.23) (1.96)
Instructor and others (5) 8 12.5 8.34
(0.53) (2.50) (1.67)
Academic experience 20 years or over (71) 698 226.50 160.51
(3.28) (3.53) (2.26)
11–20 years (103) 918 271.50 201.79
(2.97) (2.64) (1.96)
6–10 years (33) 214 148.00 100.46
(2.16) (4.48) (3.04)
5 years or below (22) 107 88.00 56.58
(1.62) (4.00) (2.57)
Research field Natural science (21) 201 49.50 30.97
(3.19) (2.36) (1.47)
Engineering (159) 1,390 521.35 364.98
(2.91) (3.28) (2.30)
Agriculture (6) 43 19.15 15.98
(2.37) (3.19) (2.28)
Medical (40) 296 138.50 101.82
(2.47) (3.46) (2.55)
Social science and others (3) 7 7.50 2.67
(0.78) (2.50) (0.89)
Type of university Public (175) 1,476 561.09 393.32
(2.81) (3.21) (2.25)
Private (54) 461 174.0 126.51
(2.84) (3.22) (2.34)
Total (229) 1,937 735.09 519.83
(2.82) (3.21) (2.27)

Table 5 Descriptive analysis of the key variables

Variable Minimum Maximum Percentiles

25 50 75

Publication quantity 0 20.33 0.33 1.67 4.33

Application research 0.5 5 2.5 3.5 5
Disclosure delay 0 4.33 1.33 2.33 3
Patent grant 0.33 8.67 0.33 0.67 1.67
License creation 0 7.33 0 0 0.22
Licensing income 0 2,623.33 0 0 66.67

123
 414

123
Table 6 Descriptive statistics and correlationsa
Variable Mean Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Publication quantity 2.82 3.24

2. Application research 3.21 1.19 -.11
3. Disclosure delay 2.27 1.12 -.11 .24***
4. Patent grant 1.18 1.52 .32*** .02 -.05
5. License creation 0.33 0.94 .30*** -.06 -.14* .55****
6. Licensing income 102.11 309.80 .18** .03 .05 .20** .35***
7. Entrepreneurial commitment 10.75 6.95 .16* .14* .02 .30*** .32*** .45***
8. Professorship 0.60 0.49 .30*** -.07 .00 .10 .02 .02 .05 -.06
9. Engineering field 0.67 0.47 .03 .03 .04 .11 .07 .09 .09 .27*** -.02
10. Academic tenure 15.18 8.30 .20** .01 .03 -.02 -.03 .01 .08 -.07 .47*** -.30***
11. Public university 0.77 0.42 -.01 -.06 .08 -.09 .00 .09 .09 .01 .18** .00 .10
a
N = 229
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001; two-tailed tests
P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang
 Table 7 Effects of research commercialization and entrepreneurial commitment on knowledge production and diffusiona
Variable Publication quantity Application orientation Disclosure delay

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

Main effects
Patent grant 0.096*** 0.267*** 0.020 0.021 0.011 0.006
(0.025) (0.039) (0.029) (0.042) (0.035) (0.051)
License creation 0.123*** 0.482*** 0.052 0.085 0.114* 0.110*
(0.035) (0.115) (0.053) (0.147) (0.077) (0.177)
Licensing income 0.003* 0.001* 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004
(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.001) (0.003)
Moderated effects
Entrepreneurial commitment 9 patent grant -0.148*** 0.121* 0.085
(0.035) (0.044) (0.057)
License creation -0.086*** 0.196** 0.143**
(0.021) (0.023) (0.030)
Licensing income 0.012** 0.003 0.022
(0.006) (0.002) (0.005)
Controls
Professorship 0.740*** 0.685*** 0.651*** -0.072 -0.078 -0.067 -0.020 -0.014 -0.008
(0.105) (0.106) (0.110) (0.087) (0.088) (0.089) (0.104) (0.105) (0.106)
Engineering field 0.104 0.055 -0.005 0.057(0.087) 0.053 0.056 0.071(0.104) 0.072 0.061
(0.094) (0.096) (0.099) (0.088) (0.089) (0.105) (0.107)
Academic tenure 0.013* 0.016** 0.018** 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.003
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion

(0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)

Public university -0.189* -0.157 -0.129 -0.043 -0.039 -0.053 -0.094 -0.102 -0.127
(0.095) (0.097) (0.103) (0.088) (0.089) (0.092) (0.104) (0.105) (0.109)
LR v2 103.38 176.35 232.26 1.63 2.83 6.86 1.47 6.26 8.28
Log-likelihood -582.23 -545.74 -509.86 -395.94 -385.34 -361.25 -367.23 -354.83 -348.68
Pseudo R2 0.08 0.14 0.20 0.04 0.09 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.15
a
For all models, N = 229. Standardized coefficients are shown. Standard errors are in parentheses
?
p B .10; * p B .05; ** p B .01; *** p B .001
415

123
416 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

statistically significant and negative moderating effects on publication quantity (p \ .001).

The negative signs suggest that publication quantity is downscaled as a faculty member
increases the intensity of her/his entrepreneurial commitment, thereby supporting the
argument for Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 predicts that the relationship between research commercialization and
application-oriented research would be positively moderated by the level of entrepreneurial
commitment. As shown in Models 5 and 6, the coefficients for patent grant, license, and
licensing income are positive and not statistically significant. Specifically, the entrepre-
neurial commitment variable generally shows statistically significant and positive mod-
erating effects on application-oriented research (p \ .10). The positive signs suggest that
the application-oriented research is significantly enhanced as a faculty member increases
the intensity of their entrepreneurial commitment, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicts that the relationship between research commercialization and
disclosure delay would be positively moderated by the level of entrepreneurial commit-
ment. As shown in Models 8 and 9, the license creation variable has a statistically sig-
nificant and positive impact on disclosure delay. And the coefficients for patent grant and
licensing income on disclosure delay are positive and not statistically significant. Specif-
ically, the entrepreneurial commitment variable shows a statistically significant and
positive influence on the relationship between license creation and disclosure delays. The
positive signs suggest that disclosure delay can be enhanced as faculty members develop a
higher intensity of entrepreneurial commitment, thereby supporting the argument for
Hypothesis 3 conditionally.

Discussion

Within the 3-year period, the annual publication quantity was higher than the annual patent
grant. This implies that the orientation of faculty evaluation guided the faculty members
toward publishing papers rather than patent grants. In line with prior research, academic
researchers were more interested in pursuing the accomplishments of their research than in
spending time in the commercial exploitation of inventions (Smith and Parr 2003).
Roughly, only a quarter of the patents had been licensed and generated NT$23,358,000
annually. Echoing the research of Jensen and Thursby (2001), it was found that only 12%
of university inventions were ready for commercial use at the time of licensing, and
manufacturing feasibility was known for only 8%. This suggests that not only is there a gap
between research results and research commercialization, but also the nature of academic
research keeps faculty members from engaging in commercialization activities.
The demographic comparison suggests that full professors, having 11–20 years tenure,
in the engineering field as well as private university patent inventors all outperform their
counterparts in patenting and licensing. The finding is in line with Balconi and Laboranti
(2006), who argued that the richness and variety of networking linkages have positive
impacts on entrepreneurial productivity. Similarly, prior research suggested that senior
faculty members in a venturing team devote virtually full time to entrepreneurial tasks
(Etzkowitz 2003; Finkle and Deeds 2001). This study argues that accumulation of social
capital should be comparatively easier for a full professor to develop. However, the policy
of publication requirements for promotion attracts junior academic researchers to con-
centrate on knowledge creation. Faculty members with engineering backgrounds were
found to perform better on the annual average number of patent grants, licenses, and
licensing incomes than their counterparts. This finding supports prior research that

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 417

engineering faculty are more willing to participate in licensing, and thus are more willing
to disclose early (Louis et al. 2001; Owen-Smith and Powell 2001). Yet the finding could
be related to industry specialization of Taiwan. For example, Iversen et al. (2007) and
Valentin and Jensen (2007) both suggested that the academic patents in Norway, Denmark,
and Sweden were mostly occupied in the fields of chemicals and pharmacy. The academic
patents were argued to be concentrating more on biological and medical inventions by
Belgian universities at the EPO (Sapsalis et al. 2006).
Moreover, this study supports the argument that the state-owned universities have no
significant ability to create licensing income (Chang et al. 2005). However, the faculty
members of public universities had significantly higher licensing incomes than their
counterparts in private universities. Similar to prior research, higher faculty quality tends to
produce a greater number of inventions having potential viability (Thursby and Kemp
2002; Friedman and Silberman 2003). The findings suggest that the quality of the research
results from public universities is evaluated higher in the Taiwanese marketplace.
The positive impact of research commercialization on publication quantity supports the
idea that faculty members also play an important role as economic actors. The faculty
members who hold patent grants have balanced research commercialization and research
publication well. Commercial and academic standards for success have now become
integrated into a hybrid regime, where achievement in one realm is dependent upon suc-
cess in the other (Owen-Smith 2003). Patenting does not seem to limit research activity
significantly, particularly among those doing basic research (Breschi et al. 2007; Walsh
et al. 2005). Patenting scientists appear to outperform their solely publishing, non-
inventing peers in terms of publication counts and citation frequency (Meyer 2006b).
Specifically, the positive impacts of licensing outcomes on publication advances the
understanding—publication and patent behavior are reinforcing each other considerably
(e.g., Van Looy et al. 2006).
Even though faculty members may choose to commercialize their research results, the
academic routines maintain their pursuit of research publication. Very often the researchers
who developed the licensed technology will initially work as a consultant for the licensee
as commercial development of the new invention is pursued (Smith and Parr 2003). As
faculty members extend their research commercializing activities from patenting to
industrial consultancy, licensing, or venturing, the enlargement of the function of economic
creation gradually hinders the quantity of their papers published. Interestingly, the effect of
licensing income and entrepreneurial commitment significantly enhances the quantity of
paper publications. It implies that a high quality of IPR along with a high level of
entrepreneurial commitment would enhance more paper creation.
The moderation effects of entrepreneurial commitment significantly enhance the
development of application-oriented research. This finding clarified the differentiated
impacts of the research commercialization on applied-research orientation observed in
previous studies. For example, it has been reported that the faculties with funding from
industries undertook significantly less basic research than researchers with no such external
funds (Geuna and Nesta 2006). Industrial funding mechanisms turn to research centers
with an application-oriented agenda rather than to centers known for performing basic
research (Florida and Cohen 1999). However, the findings that the percentage of basic
research at universities remained unchanged between 1981 and 1995 (e.g., Hicks and
Hamilton 1999) or collaborative research with industry is detrimental to academic research
(e.g., Godin and Gingras 2000) do not seem to be empirically grounded.
Research commercialization did not appear to put off the disclosure of research results
for all faculty members. However, significant moderating effects implied that there was a

123
418 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

trade-off relationship with disclosure delay upon increasing industrial resources. It verifies
that as the dependency on industrial funding for academic research gets deeper, the client
relation might create conflicts of interests for faculty members (Smith and Parr 2003). And
it is more likely that academic licensors will be required by their industrial partners to put
off the disclosure of research results through paper submission. The result is in line with
that of Murray and Stern (2006) in which the knowledge diffusion in terms of paper
citation will be declined after the associate patent is granted. These findings also advance
the understanding of the dilemma of developing academic entrepreneurship (e.g., Finkle
and Deeds 2001; Murray 2004).

Conclusions

Within the transformation of the ‘‘scientific–economic’’ institutional paradigm, the

function of economic creation is being added to academic routines. The empirical results
bring some important implications for government policymakers and university leaders in
making proactive initiatives for the development of academic research commercializa-
tion. University policy and structure in stimulating entrepreneurial activities have
enhanced the faculty members’ involvement in research commercialization. For most
faculty members, research commercialization and knowledge production do not hamper
each other. Policymakers and university leaders should have a clear mind in enhancing a
positive cycle of commercializing activities and research publication. Along with the
higher interactions with industrial partners, faculty members’ research commercialization
appears to alter knowledge production and diffusion. A more blurred boundary of fun-
damental development and practical application is getting more prevalent in academic
research.
This study extends the prior understanding of the impacts of entrepreneurial univer-
sities. Specifically, Chang et al. (2005) conducted an organizational level survey of 122
universities and concluded that the institutional environments in the post-STBL era (year
2000–2002) strengthened the infrastructure build up (e.g. TTO, incubator) and univer-
sity–industry partnerships. The current survey based on the individual level has
contributed to understanding the impacts of industrial partnerships on research com-
mercialization and knowledge production and diffusion. Faculty members are pulled by
both economic influence and research excellence in this scientific–economic regime.
Moreover, it reveals a possible trade-off relation between research commercialization,
knowledge production and diffusion as long as faculty members need to rely on external
funds. Academic research commercialization compels the faculty members to make their
research agenda more basic- and applied-orientation integrated. The high entrepreneurial
commitment tends to confine the disclosure of faculty members’ research results. Future
research should cautiously trace the long-term impacts of entrepreneurial faculty mem-
bers on university knowledge development. Finally, future research should develop more
precise measurement for research orientation and disclosure delay to avoid self-reported
bias.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank National Science Council, Taiwan (Project Nos.: NSC-
96-2627-E-007-001 & NSC96-2416-H-166-002-MY2) for her kind financial support. Two anonymous
referees’ insightful and constructive comments are much appreciated.

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 419

References

Argyres, N., & Liebskind, J. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commer-
cialization of biotechnology research. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, 427–454.
Azagra-Caro, J. M., de Lucio, I. F., & Gracia, A. G. (2003). University patents: Output and input indica-
tors…of what? Research Evaluation, 12, 5–16.
Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of
microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.
Branscomb, L. M., Kodama, F., & Florida, R. (1999). Industrializing knowledge: University–industry
linkages in Japan and the United States. London: MIT Press.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2007). The scientific productivity of academic inventors: New
evidence from Italian data. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 101–118.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Chang, Y.-C., Chen, M.-H., Hua, M., & Yang, P. Y. (2005). Industrializing academic knowledge in Taiwan.
Research Technology Management, 48, 45–50.
Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The
case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 267–281.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and inno-
vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Crespi, R. S. (2004). Patenting for the research scientist: An update. Trends in Biotechnology, 22, 638–642.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?
Research Policy, 32, 209–227.
Duke, C. R. (1995). Organizational conflicts affecting technology commercialization from nonprofit labo-
ratories. Journal of Product Brand Management, 4, 5–13.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–
industry linkage. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’? The invention of the entrepreneurial university.
Research Policy, 32, 109–121.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: Triple-
helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Printer.
Finkle, T. A., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty 1989–1998. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16, 613–630.
Florida, R., & Cohen, W. M. (1999). Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development.
In L. M. Branscomb, F. Kodama, & R. Florida (Eds.), Industrializing knowledge: University-industry
linkages in Japan and the United States (pp. 589–610). London: MIT Press.
Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and
location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.
Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university
research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging
European evidence. Research Policy, 35, 790–807.
Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The impact of collaborative research on academic science. Science and
Public Policy, 27, 65–73.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anti-commons in biomedical
research. Science, 280, 698–701.
Hicks, D., & Hamilton, K. (1999). Does university–industry collaboration adversely affect university
research? Issues in Science and Technology, 16, 74–76.
Howells, J., Nedeva, M., & Georghiou, L. (1998). Industry-academic links in the UK. Bristol, UK: Higher
Education Funding Council for England.
Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting
legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70, 393–414.
Jensen, R. A., & Thursby, M. C. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university
inventions. American Economic Review, 91, 240–257.
Lach, S., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Royalty sharing and technology licensing in universities. Journal of
the European Economic Association, 2, 252–264.

123
420 P. Y. Yang, Y.-C. Chang

Lehrer, M., & Asakawa, K. (2004). Pushing scientists into the marketplace: Promoting science entrepre-
neurship. California Management Review, 46, 55–76.
Louis, K. S., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Blumenthal, D., & Campbell, E. G. (2001). Entrepreneurship,
secrecy, and productivity: A comparison of clinical and non-clinical life sciences faculty. Journal of
Technology Transfer, 26, 233–245.
McKelvey, M. D. (1997). Emerging environments in biotechnology. In H. Etzkowitz & L. Leydesdorff
(Eds.), Universities and the global knowledge economy: Triple-helix of university-industry-government
relations (pp. 60–70). London: Printer.
McMillan, G. S., Dees, D. C., & Narin, F. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in
innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1–8.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science
considered. Science, 159, 56–63.
Meyer, M. (2006a). Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-
authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35, 1646–
1662.
Meyer, M. (2006b). Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting
researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Scientometrics, 68, 545–
560.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C.
Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-
Dole act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399–418.
Mulkay, M. (1976). The mediating role of the scientific elite. Social Studies of Science, 6, 445–470.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life.
Research Policy, 3, 643–659.
Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2006). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientist
knowledge?. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (1999). Science and technology indicators: Fiscal year 1999 budget
request overview. http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy1999/start.htm.
Nelson, R. R. (2001). Observations on the post-Bayh–Dole rise of patenting at American universities.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13–19.
Nicolas, C., & Mireille, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production?: Laboratory
level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33, 1081–1102.
O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an
entrepreneurial university: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R&D Management,
37, 1–16.
Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and
private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32, 1081–1104.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2001). To patent or not: Faculty decisions and institutional success at
technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 99–114.
Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms
that go public: A resource-based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,
20, 291–311.
Raine, J. K., & Beukman, C. P. (2002). University technology commercialisation offices—a New Zealand
perspective. International Journal of Technology Management, 24, 627–647.
Sanz-Menéndez, L., & Cruz-Castrol, L. (2003). Coping with environmental pressures: Public research
organisations responses to funding crises. Research Policy, 32, 209–227.
Sapsalis, E., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., & Navon, R. (2006). Academic versus industry patenting:
An in-depth analysis of what determines patent value. Research Policy, 35, 1631–1645.
Shane, S. A. (2002). Executive forum: University technology transfer to entrepreneurial companies. Journal
of Business Venturing, 17, 537–552.
Shane, S. A. (2004a). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Boston, MA:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S. A. (2004b). Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on uni-
versity patenting in the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 127–151.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective
transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: Qualitative evidence from the
commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
21, 115–142.

123
Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion 421

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., & Link, A. N. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the
productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Smith, G. V., & Parr, R. L. (2003). Intellectual property: Licensing and joint venture profit strategies (2nd
ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.
Sorensen, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33, 1615–
1634.
Thursby, J. G., & Kemp, S. (2002). Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property
licensing. Research Policy, 31, 109–124.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university
property rights. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 251–276.
Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic
researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing. Research Policy, 35, 596–608.
Verspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems.
Journal of Economic Surveys, 20, 607–632.
Wallmark, J. T. (1997). Inventions and patents at universities: The case of Chalmers University of Tech-
nology. Technovation, 17, 127–139.
Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., & Cohen, W. M. (2005). The view from the bench: Patents, material transfers and
biomedical research. Science, 309, 2002–2003.

123