The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences
Open accessAbstract
We draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe. Understanding cross-national differences in the organization of innovative labor in the life sciences requires attention to the structure and evolution of biomedical networks involving public research organizations (universities, government laboratories, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), science-based biotechnology firms, and multinational pharmaceutical corporations. We use network visualization methods and correspondence analyses to demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the United States and in European nations. But the scientific and organizational composition of these regions varies in consequential ways. In the United States, public research organizations and small firms conduct R&D across multiple therapeutic areas and stages of the development process. Ties within and across these regions link small firms and diverse public institutions, contributing to the development of a robust national network. In contrast, the European story is one of regional specialization with a less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas. European institutes develop local connections to small firms working on similar scientific problems, while cross-national linkages of European regional clusters typically involve large pharmaceutical corporations. We show that the roles of large and small firms differ in the United States and Europe, arguing that the greater heterogeneity of the U.S. system is based on much closer integration of basic science and clinical development.
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
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Self-citationError and attack tolerance of complex networks
Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35019019 · Cited by 7,534
Beitrag zur Theorie des Ferromagnetismus
Ising, E. (1925) · Zeitschrift für Physik · doi:10.1007/bf02980577 · Cited by 3,871
Cited by
The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D
Pammolli, F., Magazzini, L., & Riccaboni, M. (2011) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd3405 · Cited by 918
Self-citationThe geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration
Ponds, R., Van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007) · Papers in Regional Science · doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.x · Cited by 645
Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-intensive Industries
Whittington, K. B., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2009) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.90 · Cited by 576
Self-citationKoseoglu, M. A. (2016) · BRQ Business Research Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001 · Cited by 242
The endless frontier? The recent increase of R&D productivity in pharmaceuticals
Pammolli, F., Righetto, L., Abrignani, S., Pani, L., Pelicci, P. G., & Rabosio, E. (2020) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02313-z · Cited by 77
Self-citationKnowledge production patterns of China and the US: quantum technology
Jang, B., Choung, J.-Y., & Kang, I. (2022) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04478-4 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 24-43
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2024425823
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 37.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.