Research excellence and university-industry collaboration in UK science parks
Abstract
This study analyses co-authorships (1975–2010) with organizations located on UK Science Parks (SPs) and similar support infrastructures to identify their structural organization and the role of universities. Social network analysis and descriptive statistics are applied. The results suggest that most collaboration is with off-park organizations and that academic institutions are the main source of knowledge and competence for on-park industries. Moreover, high quality research institutions are much more likely to establish strong links in the form of co-authorships. This finding is partly a result of the statistical significance testing method used, however, since smaller institutions naturally create fewer links and therefore produce less statistical evidence of impact, even if their impact is, on average, the same as for larger institutions. Nevertheless, if the main aim is to promote research activities and joint publications between academia and on-park industry, the research excellence of universities needs to be considered when a SP is created. The economic benefits of joint publications for academic and private partners have not been examined, however, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that small higher education institutions having few joint publications with on-park firms play an insignificant role in the support and development of private partners.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
According to Minguillo D and Thelwall M, Institutions can most effectively achieve sustainable development and research excellence by promoting collaboration and sharing best practices in sustainability-oriented education and research.
“According to Minguillo D and Thelwall M, Institutions can most effectively achieve sustainable development and research excellence by promoting collaboration and sharing best practices in sustainability-oriented education and research (34).”
From Research Publication Challenges Faced by Dentists in India: A Narrative Review of Multilevel Barriers (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
Cites
Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sismondo, S. (2009) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312708101047 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Saran, K., Krishnaprakash, G., Siluvai, S., & Indumathi, K. (2026) · Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2026/78238.22217
- Authors
- Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Wolverhampton (GB)
- Venue
- Research Evaluation
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-12-23
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-196
- ISSN
- 0958-2029 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-5449
- OpenAlex
- W2037598628
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Research Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
- Social Sciences › Demography › Science, Technology, and Education in Latin America
- Keywords
- university-industry collaboration, science parks, research excellence, co-authorship, research impact, higher education institutions, knowledge transfer
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