Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry technology transfer

By Albert N. Link, Donald S. Siegel. 2005

202 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Finance

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3b4d580ced915bee436786c1a56cc7c0c096425b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Finance

Citations in the corpus

Academic Entrepreneurship: Time for a Rethink? (2015, unknown): “…the importance of pecuniary incentives for faculty members has been examined (e.g., royalty distribution formulas-see Lach and Schankerman, 2004); Link and Siegel, 2005), there has been no systematic analysis of the role of changes in promotion and tenure policies on the propensity of academics…”
Informal university technology transfer: a comparison between the United States and Germany (2010, background): “However, significant difficulties in negotiating and transacting with the TTO remain (Link and Siegel 2005) which suggests that university scientists may have strong incentives to informally transfer their research results instead of choosing the route through the TTO.”
Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany (2011, unknown): “Moreover, overwhelming evidence indicates that also in the academic world rewards matter (Link and Siegel 2005; Owen-Smith and Powell 2001, 2003; Geuna 1999), employees in TTO are paid as the administrators they really are.”
Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations (2009, unknown): “commercial involvement (Lach and Schankerman 2008; Link and Siegel 2005).”
Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence (2005, background): “For example, Link and Siegel (2004) find that universities having more attractive incentive structures for technology transfer, i.e., those that allocate a higher percentage of royalty payments to faculty members, tend to be more efficient in technology transfer activities.”
The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model (2015, background): “Out-the-Door Link and Siegel (2005) Link, Albert N., Siegel, Donald S., 2005.”
An Empirical Analysis of the Propensity of Academics to Engage in Informal University Technology Transfer (2007, methodology): “See, for example, Louis et al. (1989) and Audretsch (2000).”
Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework (2008, result): “In contrast, other research has shown universities that give higher percentages of royalty payments to their faculty members positively impacts the efficiency of university technology transfer activities ( Link and Siegel 2005 ).”
Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity (2011, unknown): “Regional RD Lindelo ¨f and Lo ¨fsten 2004; Link and Siegel 2005 ).”