The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns
Abstract
This study looks at the United States biotechnology industry as a community of practice caught between two evolutionary logics by which valuable scientific knowledge and valuable innovations are selected. We analyze the publications and patents of 116 biotechnology firms during the period 1988–1995. In models that link scientific capabilities to patent citations, we show that scientific ideas are not simply inputs into inventions; important scientific ideas and influential patents follow different and conflicting selection logics. Publication, collaboration, and science intensity are associated with patented innovations; however, important scientific papers are negatively associated with high-impact innovations. These results point to conflicting logics between science and innovation, and scientists must contribute to both while inhabiting a single epistemic community. We identify individuals listed on patents and scientific papers and find they effectively integrate science with innovation, leading to more successful innovations. Our findings suggest that the role of the small, research-intensive firm is to create a repository of knowledge; to act as an organizational mechanism to combine the capabilities of versatile scientists within and outside the boundaries of the firm; and to manage the selection of scientific ideas to produce valuable technical innovations.
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
Regression Analysis of Count Data
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139013567 · Cited by 6,640
Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905 · Cited by 2,565
Self-citationToward 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
Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150505 · Cited by 1,166
Self-citation
Cited by
The 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
Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004 · Cited by 520
Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2006) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.019 · Cited by 448
Gatekeepers of Knowledge within Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact
Morrison, A. (2008) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343400701654178 · Cited by 441
The incidence and role of negative citations in science
Catalini, C., Lacetera, N., & Oettl, A. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1502280112 · Cited by 189
Metadata
- Authors
- Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2003-04
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 366-382
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2129707775
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 32.90
- 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: Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.366.14420
- The paper
- Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.366.14420
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.