Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research policy often asks for international academic collaboration or collaborations between universities and other actors in society. To improve the understanding of such collaborations, a systematic analysis of academic–corporate co-publications was conducted, with a focus on the international dimension. Based on the global volume of publications in the Scopus database, one result is that academic–corporate co-publications enjoy a higher citation impact than other types of publications. Another result is that such co-publications are to a large extent internationally co-authored. Studies of ten countries and the ten plus ten largest academic and corporate institutions in these countries in terms of academic–corporate co-publications confirm these results and provide further details. Finally, the results indicate a positive correlation between the share of academic–corporate co-publications in a country and the innovation performance in indices such as the Global Innovation Index and the European Innovation Scoreboard. This study highlights the need to consider the numbers of co-authors and the high share of international co-publications when analyses are based on academic–corporate co-publications. Even though academic–corporate co-publications only reflect a small part of all academic–corporate collaborations, academic–corporate co-publications are shown to be useful as one of many potential tools to assess collaborations between academic and corporate actors and associated investments in research and innovation. It is also argued that the results of the study support policies promoting academic–corporate collaborations leading to co-publications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 2015, the volume for Indonesia was 8,400 and in 2019, it had grown to 46,000 publications.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., Costa, F. D., & Solazzi, M. (2009). University-industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6–7), 498–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L. E. (2010), Global perspectives on higher education, in ‘Trends in Global Higher Education’, Brill vert Sense

  • Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, M., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellucci, A., & Pennacchio, L. (2016). University knowledge and firm innovation: evidence from European countries. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 730–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, C., Andersen, J. P., Kjeldager, T. R. and Schneider, J. W. (2017), COLLABORATION IN RESEARCH, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy (CFA), Aarhus University

  • Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513–1522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calero, C., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2007). Research cooperation within the bio-pharmaceutical industry: Network analyses of co-publications within and between firms. Scientometrics, 71(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, H. (2009). Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education: an introduction. Measuring success in the internationalisation of higher education, 22, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ’European paradox. Research Policy, 35(10), 1450–1464.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Innovation Scoreboard (2020) European Innovation Scoreboard, European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en

  • Elsevier (2020a), SciVal. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival

  • Elsevier (2020b), SciVal Metrics Guidebook. https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/research-metrics-guidebook

  • Falk, R. (2006). Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms innovation activities Survey evidence from Austria. Technical report, 36(5), 665–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2006). The ex ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior. Research Policy, 35(10), 1509–1521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitjar, R. D., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2011). When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 43(6), 1248–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, L., & Roessner, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 657–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications, california

  • Glaenzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51(1), 69–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaenzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999). A bibliometric analysis of international scientific cooperation of the European Union (1985–1995). Scientometrics, 45(2), 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, A., & Jacobsson, S. (2006). Myths or reality - a scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate. Science and Public Policy, 33(5), 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Innovation Index (2020). Global Innovation Index, GII 2019 Rankings English, https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/about-gii#keyfindings.

  • Hicks, D. (1995). Tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4, 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao, H., Zhou, J., Gao, T., & Liu, X. (2016). ‘The more interactions the better? The moderating effect of the interaction between local producers and users of knowledge on the relationship between R&D investment and regional innovation systems.’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 110, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonkers, K., & Sachwald, F. (2018). The dual impact of ‘excellent’ research on science and innovation: the case of Europe. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, M. (2017). Co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration: a cautionary tale. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 117–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamalski, J. and Plume, A. (2013), Comparative benchmarking of European and US research collaboration and researcher mobility: A report prepared in collaboration between Science Europe and Elsevier SciVal Analytics, Technical report.

  • Karlsson, S., & Wadskog, D. (2007). Vetenskapligt publiceringssamarbete mellan svenska företag och högskolor Publication cooperation between businesses and the higher education sector in Sweden. Swedish Research Council: Technical report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klette, T. J., Møen, J., & Griliches, Z. (2000). Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 471–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeau, L.-M., Laframboise, M.-C., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2008). The effect of university-industry collaboration on the scientific impact of publications: the Canadian case, 1980–2005. Research Evaluation, 17(3), 227–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2007). On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Saltons Cosine versus the Jaccard index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69, 575–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29(6), 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, C., Ferreira, J. J., & Marques, C. (2018). University-industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Science and Public Policy, 45(5), 708–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, M., & Holmén, M. (2009). Learning to Compete in European Universities: From social institution to knowledge business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, M., & Rake, B. (2020). Exploring scientific publications by firms: what are the roles of academic and corporate partners for publications in high reputation or high impact journals? Scientometrics, 122, 1323–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03344-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. V., Ho-Le, T. P., & Le, U. V. (2016). International collaboration in scientific research in Vietnam: an analysis of patterns and impact. Scientometrics, 110(2), 1035–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research Policy, 20(2), 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, H. (2020). Collaboration with countries with rapidly growing research: supporting proactive development of international research collaboration. Scientometrics, 122(1), 287–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, H., & Lane, J. E. (2018). Research contributions of international branch campuses to the scientific wealth of academically developing countries. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1719–1734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, H., Warnan, G., & Baas, J. (2014). Level the playing field in scientific collaboration with the use of a new indicator: Field-weighted internationalization score. Research Trends, 39, 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polt, W., & Streicher, G. (2005). Trying to capture additionality in framework programme 5-main findings. Science and Public Policy, 32(5), 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polyakov, M., Polyakov, S., & Iftekhar, M. S. (2017). Does academic collaboration equally benefit impact of research across topics? The case of agricultural, resource, environmental and ecological economics. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1385–1405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2017). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114(1), 159–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. (1997). Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how? Research Policy, 26(4–5), 447–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (2018). Twin-win model: A human-centered approach to research success. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(50), 12590–12594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simeth, M., & Cincera, M. (2016). Corporate science, innovation, and firm value. Management Science, 62(7), 1970–1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J.-C., & Trondal, J. (2005). Globalisation or europeanisation? International contact among university staff. Higher Education, 49(4), 449–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society (2011), Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century, RS Policy document 03/11, The Royal Society.

  • Thelwall, M. (2020). Large publishing consortia produce higher citation impact research but co-author contributions are hard to evaluate. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2004). Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Research Policy, 33(5), 709–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2009). How globalized is corporate pharmaceutical research? An analysis of Europe’s multinational companies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21, 859–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2011). Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public–private collaboration. Research Evaluation, 21, 204–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2012) R&D globalization processes and university-industry research cooperation: measurement and indicators, CWTS Working Paper Series, Paper number CWTS-WP-2012–009.

  • Tijssen, R., van de Klippe, W. & Yegros, A. (2020), Localization, regionalization and globalization of university-business research co-operation in the United Kingdom, Pap Reg Sci., 1–22

  • Tijssen, R., Van Leeuwen, T., & Van Wijk, E. (2009). Benchmarking university-industry research co-operation worldwide: Performance measurements and indicators based on co-authorship data for the world’s largest universities. Research Evaluation, 18, 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R., & Yegros, A. (2017). UK universities and European industry. Nature, 544, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R., Yegros, A., & Lamers, W. (2017), UK universities interacting with industry: patterns of research collaboration and inter-sectoral mobility of academic researchers, CGHE Working Paper 14.

  • Vosviewer (2020), Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands. www.vosviewer.com

  • Wagner, C. S., Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Hooi, R., Li, A. X., & Chou, M.-H. (2019). Collaboration patterns of mobile academics: The impact of international mobility. Science and Public Policy, 46(3), 450–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildawsky, B., Kelly, A., & Carey, K. (2011). Reinventing Higher Education: the Promise of Innovation. Cambridge, USA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • WorldBank (2020), Research and development expenditure (% of GDP). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/gb.xpd.rsdv.gd.zs

  • Zacharewicz, T., Lepori, B., Reale, E., & Jonkers, K. (2018). Performance-based research funding in EU member states-a comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy, 46(1), 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y., Li, X., Lema, R., & Urban, F. (2015). Comparing the knowledge bases of wind turbine firms in Asia and Europe: Patent trajectories, networks, and globalisation. Science and Public Policy, 43(4), 476–491.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for very valuable comments and Elsevier’s SciVal team (Zsofia Buttel and Kiyoka Kamada) for extraordinary efforts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education, STINT, Wallingatan 2, 111 60, Stockholm, Sweden

    Hans Pohl

  2. The Cross-Border Education Research Team, the University At Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA

    Hans Pohl

Authors
  1. Hans Pohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Pohl.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pohl, H. Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications. Scientometrics 126, 1329–1358 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03799-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03799-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation