If Star Scientists do not patent: The Effect of Productivity, Basicness and Impact on The Decision t

1
If Star Scientists do not patentThe Effect of
Productivity, Basicness and Impact on
TheDecision to Patent in the Academic World
Mario Calderini, Chiara Franzoni e Andrea
VezzulliDISPEA, Politecnico di Torino,
TurinCESPRI, Università Commerciale L.
Bocconi, Milan
2
Academic Patenting. Rivalry vs. Complementarity
Hp

• RIVALRY
• the pursuit of market goals may favor a
  re-arrangement of academic research agendas in
  favor of short-term exploitable trajectories of
  research
• the rules of market competition may not be
  compatible with the social norms of priority and
  free circulation of knowledge (Dasgupta and
  David, 1985 Heller and Eisenberg, 1998)
• COMPLEMENTARITY
• feedback from industrial work may be so rich to
  enable advances in knowledge or raise new quests
  for fundamental inquires (Rosemberg, 1982
  Mansfield, 1995)
• Pasteurs Quadrant in some areas considerations
  of use and fundamental understanding can be
  pursued at the same time (Stokes, 1997)

3
Empirical Evidence

• CROSS-SECTION
• most productive scientists in terms of
  publications are also more productive in terms of
  patents (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002 Stephan et
  al., 2007 Van Looy et al., 2004 Carayol, 2007)
• LONGITUDINAL
• academic inventors are likely to experience a
  (temporary) increase in number of articles
  published in coincidence with
• the patent event (Azoulay et al., 2006 Breschi
  et al., 2007).
• patents are preceded by a flurry of publications
  (Azoulay et al., 2007), although propensity might
  be decrease for stars (Calderini et al., 2007).
• FIELDS
• Life Sciences, Computer Sciences, Engineering,
  Physics, Chemistry
• OPEN ISSUES
• Quality? How about ENGINEERING vs. SCIENCE?

4
Sample and Data

• SAMPLE
• Names of 1323 Italian publicly-funded scientists
  in 2001
• Material Sciences
• DATA
• Longitudinal data on all publications (ISI) and
  patents
• (EPO/USPTO) made by each scientist from the age
  of 23
• 1970 2001
• 20,856 scientific papers published
• 941 journals Impact Factor (JCR) and Level
  (Chi/research report)
• 305 patents assigned to academic inventors

Politecnico di Torino
5
Inventors and Patents per type of assignee

• 8387 patents (accounting for 80-81 inventors)
  was assigned to a firm (academic privilege)
• serial inventors

Politecnico di Torino
6
Variables Productivity, Basicness, Impact

• PRODUCTIVITY 3-years moving average of the
  number of articles published by each individual
• BASICNESS 3-years moving average of the rank
  (Level) of the journals where the individual
  published
• IMPACT 3-years moving average of the Impact
  Factor of the journals where the individual
  published

Politecnico di Torino
7
PRODUCTIVITY 3-years moving average of the
number of articles published by each individual
Politecnico di Torino
8
BASICNESS 3-years moving average of the rank
(Level) of the journals where the individual
published
Politecnico di Torino
9
IMPACT 3-years moving average of the Impact
Factor of the journals where the individual
published
Politecnico di Torino
10
Model estimate
Proportional Hazard assumption (hp all
individuals have identical shape of
hazard). Estimate by Partial Likelihood
method (Cox, 1972), which avoids imposing a
specific distribution for T (baseline cancels
out).
Politecnico di Torino
11
Results all publication indicators have a
curvilinear effect on the probability of
experiencing an event
Politecnico di Torino
12
Results all publication indicators have a
curvilinear effect on the probability of
experiencing an event
Politecnico di Torino
13
Results publicationbasicness and
publiationimpact have a threshold effect on the
probability of experiencing an event
Politecnico di Torino
14
Results Effect of Productivity Basicness and
Productivity Impact
Politecnico di Torino
15
Productivity_Basicness and Productivity_Impact
Effects
Politecnico di Torino
16
Curvilinear effects
BASICNESS IMPACT Threshold 3.49
77th centile Threshold 2.34 68th centile
Politecnico di Torino
17
Other results

• . Male gender 140 hazard, but not significant
  for restricted event of patenting with a firm.
• . No time/cohort effect probability to patent
  has not changed over time.
• . Experience of TTOs increases the hazard to
  patent.
• . Probability to patent is higher in low-industry
  environments.
• . Probability to patent with firms decreases with
  the size of institutions.
• . Estimates on the restricted event to patent
  with a firm confirm all curvilinear effects.

Politecnico di Torino
18
Restricted event to patent with a firm all
curvilinear effects hold
Politecnico di Torino
19
Restricted event to patent with a firm.All
results hold. Effects increse in magnitudo.
Politecnico di Torino
20
Conclusions

• . Performances of scientists are a strong
  predictor of the likelihood to patent.
• . All bibliometric indicators had a curvilinear
  effect are there different career trajectories?
• i) low to medium levels of the indicators any
  increase in performances increases the
  probability to patent
• (e.g. higher productivitymore results to
  exploit higher impacthigher reputationvisibilit
  y higher levelmore pervasive results)
• ii) high levels of the indicators any increase
  in performances decreases the probability to
  patent
• (e.g. higher productivity, higher impact, higher
  basicness more funds for untargeted research)
• Strength of those effects may depend on
  national system of research funding,
  technological regimes, type of firms in the
  region.

Politecnico di Torino
21
Discipline counts? Research Hypothesis

• not all disciplines earn equal benefits from
  serving practical ends.
• Whereas science is aimed at the understanding of
  phenomena, engineering is applied in scope, i.e.
  aims to solve problems of industrial (practical)
  relevance, although by means of a rigorous
  scientific method (see Walter G. Vincenti, 1990).
• NB Here applied is used in its
  epistemological, rather than hierarchical
  meaning. Investigation is scoped to problems, but
  the process of knowledge creation may not
  necessarily be deductive (from basic
  disciplines), as the conventional wisdom
  suggests.
• HP working on practical problems such as those
  posed by inventing a new functional tool can be
  in principle more fertile of ideas for
  engineering than for science.

22
Dataset Patents

• 8387 patents (80 inventors) was assigned to a
  firm
• serial inventors
• Kruskal-Wallis Test confirms equality of
  populations for
• total patents invented in the overall
  observation period

23
Dataset Chemists vs. Engineers
The majority of our materials scientists was a
chemist or an engineer of materials. We run
separate analysis for subgroups.
24
Modeling

• dependent Variables A. QUANTITY number of
  publications
• (3 models) B. BASICNESS number of basic
  publications
• (IpIQ basicness index4)
• C. IMPACT impact factor
• Independent Variables postpat dummy1 if
  invented in previous year
• Controls gender, region of affiliation,
  seniority, experience of TTO, field,
  coauthorship)
• PROBLEMS IN DATA TREATMENT
• Endogeneity gt Inverse prob. of treatment weights
  (Azoulay et al., 2006 Breschi et al., 2006)
• A and B are positive integers with excess zeros gt
  Zero inflated Negbin
• C can be measured only when publications are not
  zero (left truncation) gt Heckman selection
  equation
• Patterns of publications are Subfield-specific.
  Consequently, each indicator in was normalized by
  subfield in the multivariate analysis.

25
Analysis .A Publications
QUANTITY1. count of publications gt Zero Infl
NegBin 2. logpublications1 gt OLS Fixed
Effects 3. as in 2, but publications are
weighted by coauthors
Coefficients estimated for postpat (dummy1 if
author patented in the previous year Comparison
of 3 alternative model estimates
26
Analysis B Number of basic publications (Level 4
IpIQ journals)
BASICNESS1. after patent dummy (postpat) gt Zero
Infl NegBin 2. logpublbas1 (lpublbas4) gt
OLS Fixed Effects 3. as in 2, but basic publs
are weighted by coauth.
Coefficients estimated for postpat (dummy1 if
author patented in the previous year Comparison
of 3 alternative model estimates
27
Analysis C Impact (Journal Impact Factor)
IMPACT standardized Impact Factor (stdifac)
(IF-mean(IF)/std.dev(IF) gt Heckman (postpat)
Coefficient estimate for postpat (dummy1 if
author patented in the previous year) Inverse
Probability of Treatment Weighted Heckman
selection equation. Standardized Impact Factor,
conditional to having made at least one
publications(accounts for left truncation at zero)
28
Conclusions

• Our estimate of the post-patent productivity,
  impact and basicness of publications of a sample
  of Italian Material Scientists showed that
• In the overall sample, productivity is not
  affected (or slightly positively affected) by
  patenting
• When separated into subfields,
• Engineers experience an increase of publications
  after patenting
• Chemists experience a decrease of publications
  after patenting
• Engineers experience an increase of Impact Factor
  and hold basic publications unchanged.
• Chemists experience a decrease of basic journal
  publications, and hold Impact Factor unchanged.
• The increase of IF occurs at negative marginal
  return (neutralized after the 4th patent), but
  this effect is unlikely to occur in practice