| 1. |
- McKelvey, Maureen, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring scientific publications by firms: Should firms have academic or corporate partners in order to publish?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Bocconi conference in memory of Luigi Orsenigo, 5-7 December 2018, Milano, Italy.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Recent research suggests that firms, particularly in science-based industries, publish scientific articles in order to achieve strategic goals. Since they often do so in collaboration with other organizations, this paper takes the next step by analyzing the influence of the number as well as the organization type of alliance partners on publication quality and impact. To make this argument, we analyze publications involving biotechnology or pharmaceutical firms and compare the results to publications that do not involve a firm. The empirical analysis is based on a unique dataset in pharmaceutical cancer research. The results indicate that firms need to carefully select their R&D alliance partners, as shown in the literature. Our results indicate that increasing the number of partners may have diminishing returns. More surprisingly, firms should focus on establishing R&D alliances with other firms to increase the probability of high-quality scientific publications. However, in terms of scientific impact, i.e., forward citations, firms do not benefit from having different types of alliance partners.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Rake, B., et al.
(författare)
-
Doing science together: Gaining momentum from long-term explorative university-industry research programs
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Drug Discovery Today. - 1359-6446 .- 1878-5832. ; 28:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 'Doing science together' collaborations are a more intense form of university-industry interactions and are characterized by a mutual involvement and active participation of academic and company scientists in scientific research. Here, we examine the successful approach that AstraZeneca and its internationally renowned academic partners, Karolinska Institutet and Uppsala University, implemented to fully unlock the potential of all parties in long-term, explorative, truly collaborative research programs. The underlying premises of these successful research programs are three collaborative governance mechanisms (3MCs) that are required that leverage the strengths of each organization: mutual collaboration; mutually beneficial science; and a mutual governance model with senior management involvement.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rake, B, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring Investigator Networks in Clinical Tripals
- 2018
-
Ingår i: The ISS 2018 Conference, The International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society Conference, 2-4 July 2018, Seoul, Korea.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The objective of this paper is to explore the endogenous dynamics within a network of clinical trial investigators. Clinical trials provide an ideal context for our study since clinical trial investigators need to collaborate in the management of geographically dispersed clinical trials. Moreover, the interdependent nature of trial-related tasks requires bio-medical knowledge from different (sub-)disciplines (Hoekman et al., 2012; Malterud, 2001; Patel et al., 1999). Since most investigators are trained in one specific scientific discipline but lack knowledge in other disciplines (FitzGerald, 2005), cross-disciplinary collaboration with experienced investigators and professional networks provide opportunities to access the required skills and to transfer knowledge (O‘Connell and Roblin, 2006; Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Uzzi and Lancaster, 2003). In contrast to the large amount of anecdotal evidence within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry suggesting that clinical trial investigators can influence the success of clinical research (Huckman and Zinner, 2008), empirical evidence based on sophisticated analyses of investigators’ importance for clinical trials outcomes is quite scarce. This is surprising since the investigators are, as lead scientists of clinical trials, responsible and accountable for how the entire clinical study is conducted (Hoekman et al., 2012). Moreover, the increased access to diverse knowledge enables investigators to balance their knowledge between basic and clinical research which increases the likelihood of clinical trial success in individual as well as collaborative clinical research (Assmus and Haeussler, 2017).
|
|
| 5. |
- Rake, B, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring network dynamics in science: the formation of ties to knowledge translators in clinical research
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of evolutionary economics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0936-9937 .- 1432-1386. ; 31:5, s. 1433-1464
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- From an evolutionary perspective, knowledge networks are self-organizing systems. Therefore, studying changes of these systems requires an understanding of how such changes are influenced by both the behaviors and characteristics of key individual actors and the network structure. We apply this perspective to a network of investigators (i.e. lead scientists) and a sample of 9,543 Phase 2 cancer clinical trials during the period 2002-2012, in order to examine the structure and explore the dynamics of the clinical trial network. Using temporal exponential random graph models, we examine whether preferential attachment, multi-connectivity, or homophily drive the formation of new collaborative relations to knowledge translators - i.e. investigators with basic and clinical research knowledge. Our results suggest that despite some increased connectivity over time the network remains fragmented due to the considerably growing number of investigators in the network. We find that homophily in research fields and investigators’ country of affiliation and heterophily in terms of publication output promote the formation of ties to knowledge translators. We find also that multi-connectivity increases the probability of tie formation with knowledge translators while preferential attachment reduces this probability.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rosén, B. -G, et al.
(författare)
-
On linking customer requirements to surfaces : Two Industrial- and Engineering design case studies
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Metrology and Properties of Engineering Surfaces 2011. ; , s. 131-135
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- New surface treatments, novel material developments, and improved quality control procedures and advanced metrology instrumentation create a possibility to further develop competitiveness by the selection of “optimal” surface features to a product. The customers’ first apprehension of a product and the creation of desire is a very complex but tempting process to learn to master. The product appearance plays an important role in the judgement of a product, and the surface is, among form, colour, and material of greatest importance in creating a whole impression of a product. This work addresses this “partly possible” and “to a great extent impossible” task and is a novel approach to develop and join a traditional physical metrology frame-work with qualitative gradings of apprehended impressions and feelings of products with varying surface properties.The aim of the study is to demonstrate the metrology framework linking measurable- and un-measurable properties of product surfaces to customer feeling/experience as exemplified by a set of industrial applications. The results based on three case studies show that the usage of the "Kansei" method leads to an improved knowledge about surface features in relation to the customers’ demand as exemplified with “the sauna-“ and “the building exterior” surface cases. Clear links between the expectations of the emotions linked to the products have been associated to the design variable -surface topography.Future studies will be initiated based on the results in this work to further explore the possibilities with the tactile- and colour properties to further utilize the properties of surfaces as a strategic tool for product developers.
|
|
