The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations
Open accessAbstract
A considerable body of work highlights the relevance of collaborative research, contract research, consulting and informal relationships for university–industry knowledge transfer. We present a systematic review of research on academic scientists’ involvement in these activities to which we refer as ‘academic engagement’. Apart from extracting findings that are generalisable across studies, we ask how academic engagement differs from commercialisation, defined as intellectual property creation and academic entrepreneurship. We identify the individual, organisational and institutional antecedents and consequences of academic engagement, and then compare these findings with the antecedents and consequences of commercialisation. Apart from being more widely practiced, academic engagement is distinct from commercialisation in that it is closely aligned with traditional academic research activities, and pursued by academics to access resources supporting their research agendas. We conclude by identifying future research needs, opportunities for methodological improvement and policy interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
Proactive Behavior in Organizations
Crant, J. M. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920630002600304 · Cited by 2,701
Pawson, R. (2006) · doi:10.4135/9781849209120 · Cited by 1,791
Sine, W. D., Shane, S., & Gregorio, D. D. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.478.14416 · Cited by 330
Cited by
Knowledge transfer in university–industry research partnerships: a review
de Wit-de Vries, E., Dolfsma, W. A., van der Windt, H. J., & Gerkema, M. P. (2019) · The Journal of Technology Transfer · doi:10.1007/s10961-018-9660-x · Cited by 426
What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature
Rybnicek, R., & Königsgruber, R. (2019) · Journal of Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11573-018-0916-6 · Cited by 404
Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004 · Cited by 365
Self-citationThe double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK
Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006 · Cited by 205
Innovation Lodestar: The entrepreneurial university in a stellar knowledge firmament
Etzkowitz, H. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.026 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 423-442
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3122014499
- Cited by
- 2,552
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 157.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
- The paper
- Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.