The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
WHO'S PATENTING IN THE UNIVERSITY? EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS
Abstract
We use the Survey of Doctorate Recipients to examine the question of who in US universities is patenting. Because standard methods of estimation are not directly applicable, we use a zero-inflated negative binomial model to estimate the patent equation, using instruments for the number of articles to avoid problems of endogeneity. We also estimate the patent model using the generalized method of moments estimation of count data models with endogenous regressors. We find work context and field to be important predictors of the number of patent applications. We also find patents to be positively and significantly related to the number of publications. This finding is robust to the choice of instruments and method of estimation. The cross-sectional nature of the data preclude an examination of whether a trade-off exists between publishing and patenting, holding individual characteristics constant over time. But the strong cross-sectional correlation that we find does not suggest that commercialization has come at the expense of placing knowledge in the public domain.
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
Filders, R. (1992) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(92)90130-2 · Cited by 16,165
Journal of economic literature
Armstrong, J. S. (1996) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(96)88197-0 · Cited by 9,923
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
Regression Analysis of Count Data
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139013567 · Cited by 6,640
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
Price, D. J. D. S. (1963) · Columbia University Press eBooks · doi:10.7312/pric91844 · Cited by 4,264
Regression Analysis of Count Data
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814365 · Cited by 3,147
Toward a new economics of science
Partha, D., & David, P. A. (1994) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1 · Cited by 2,448
The frequency distribution of scientific productivity
Lotka, A. J. (1926) · Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences · Cited by 2,246
Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science
Hull, D. L. (1988) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001 · Cited by 2,061
Cited by
Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.12.001 · Cited by 600
Ubiquity and Legitimacy: Disentangling Diffusion and Institutionalization
Colyvas, J. A., & Jonsson, S. (2011) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01386.x · Cited by 309
The 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
Estimates of the Continuously Publishing Core in the Scientific Workforce
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101698 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G.
- Venue
- Economics of Innovation and New Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 71-99
- ISSN
- 1043-8599 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-8364
- OpenAlex
- W2015717137
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 64
- FWCI
- 43.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: WHO'S PATENTING IN THE UNIVERSITY? EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10438590600982806
- The paper
- Stephan, P. E., Gurmu, S., Sumell, A. J., & Black, G. (2007). WHO'S PATENTING IN THE UNIVERSITY? EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEY OF DOCTORATE RECIPIENTS. Economics of Innovation and New Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590600982806
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.
