Science-based innovation: A research review and prospects

Abstract

Abstract: Schumpeter, the originator of innovation theory, defined innovation as the process of obtaining potential profits by introducing new combinations of production factors into things and activities in the production system. At present, according to the knowledge sources of industrial technological innovation, innovation could be divided into "technology-based (promotion) innovation" and "scientific-based (discovery) innovation". Science refers to the knowledge system that reflects the essence and law of objective things, and is the rational understanding of objective world things on the basis of practice and verification or logical reasoning. However, science-based innovation is not a simple combination of science and innovation. According to Coriat′s definition in 2003, science-based innovation refers to the industrial technological innovation that is strongly dependent on scientific progress and driven by cutting-edge scientific knowledge, including the whole process of new ideas generation, research, development, trial production, manufacturing and first commercialization. Up to now, science-based innovation research has attracted the attention of foreign scholars, who have carried out a large number of theoretical discussions and empirical analyses. However, the concept of science-based innovation was not contextually defined until 2012 in China. This innovation paradigm has not received enough academic attention and peer discussion in Chinese context due to the scattered research, the differences in research perspectives, levels and issues, especially lack of systematic literature review.
Therefore, this paper adopted systematic literature review method. In February 2021, using the Science Citation Index Expanded Edition (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index Edition (SSCI) within Web of Science Core Collection database (WOS) as well as the Peking University Core Index (PKU Core) and Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) databases within China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI), 258 English literatures and 52 Chinese literatures were identified. It was found that the relevant research on science-based innovation started in 1986, and in the following 34 years, the number of literatures increased year by year, showing that scholars′ interest in this filed has been continuously maintained and enhanced.
On the basis of these literatures, this paper carried out a follow-up review study, which is arranged as follows: The first part of this paper analyzed the basic situation of the 310 literatures and compares them from four aspects of time, space, journal distribution and research field to find out the current research status domestically and internationally. The second part of this paper combed the research context, including related concepts, characteristics, subjects, processes and models, and summarized the four stages of the evolution of science-based innovation paradigm since the 19th century. The third part of this paper constructed a knowledge framework for science-based innovation research, and summarized relevant researches and main conclusions from two different dimensions of innovation and enterprise dimension separately. Innovation dimension included individual, organizational and environmental factors while enterprise dimension included the creation, growth and governance of the enterprise.
Finally, this paper proposed several future research directions, such as nonlinear process model, institutional orientation, technology recombination and corporate governance, in order to provide reference for future research of science-based innovation.

Key words: science-based innovation, research context, knowledge framework, research opportunities

Li Xinrong, Zhang Qingzhi, Lei Jiasu. Science-based innovation: A research review and prospects[J]. Science Research Management, 2022, 43(1): 1-13.

References

[1] 熊彼特 J A. 经济发展理论:对于利润、资本、信贷、利息和经济周期的考察 [M]. 北京:商务印书馆, 1990.
[2] 许庆瑞. 研究、发展与技术创新管理 [M]. 北京:高等教育出版社, 2010.
[3] CORIAT B, ORSI F, WEINSTEIN O. Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime? [J]. Industry and Innovation, 2003, 10(3): 231-253.
[4] KROHN W, LAYTON E T, WEINGART P. The dynamics of science and technology : social values, technical norms, and scientific criteria in the development of knowledge [M]. Dordrecht, Holland, Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1978.
[5] 小威廉·贝拉尼克, 古斯塔夫·拉尼斯. 科学技术与经济发展：12国的历史与比较研究 [M]. 科技文献出版社, 1988: 1-80.
[6] 雷家骕. 创新植入增长:高质量增长的渊源与机理研究 [D].清华大学, 1993.
[7] 林苞, 雷家骕. 不同产业创新的差异与国家的科技政策 [J]. Industrial Technology ＆ Economy, 2012,31(9):9-10.
[8] SCHMITZ A, URBANO D, DANDOLINI G A, et al. Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting: a systematic literature review [J]. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2017, 13(2): 369-395.
[9] BREM A, NYLUND P, VIARDOT E. The impact of the 2008 financial crisis on innovation: A dominant design perspective [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2020, 110:360-369.
[10] FREEMAN C. The economics of industrial innovation [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982.
[11] MEYER-KRAHMER F, SCHMOCH U. Science-based technologies: university–industry interactions in four fields [J]. Research policy, 1998, 27(8): 835-851.
[12] PAVITT K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory [J]. Research Policy, 1984, 13(6):343-373.
[13] Johnston G R . The roles of science in technological innovation[J]. Research Policy, 1974, 3(3): 220-242.
[14] NIOSI J. Science-based industries: a new Schumpeterian taxonomy [J]. Technology in Society, 2000, 22(4): 429-444.
[15] BRUNI D S, VERONA G. Dynamic marketing capabilities in science-based firms: an exploratory investigation of the pharmaceutical industry [J]. British Journal of Management, 2009, 20(s1): S101-S117.
[16] GARNSEY, ELIZABETH. Science-based enterprise: threat or opportunity? [J]. Physics World, 1997, 10(7): 15-18.
[17] MEYER M. Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? research–based ventures and public support mechanisms [J]. R & D Management, 2003, 33(2): 107-115.
[18] POLANYI M. The tacit dimension [M]. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1967.
[19] LAESTADIUS S. Technology level, knowledge formation and industrial competence in paper manufacturing [M]//ELIASSON G, ET AL. Micro Foundations of Economic Growth. Ann Arbour: The University of Michigan Press. 1998: 212-226.
[20] ASHEIM B T, COENEN L. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters [J]. Research policy, 2005, 34(8): 1173-1190.
[21] ASHEIM B T, GERTLER M S. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems [M]//FAGERBERG J, MOWERY D, NELSON R. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford; Oxford University Press. 2005: 291-317.
[22] PLUM O, HASSINK R. On the nature and geography of innovation and interactive learning: A case study of the biotechnology industry in the Aachen technology region, Germany [J]. European Planning Studies, 2011, 19(7): 1141-1163.
[23] 林苞, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创新与基于技术的创新——兼论科学-技术关系的“部门”模式 [J]. 科学学研究, 2014, 32(9): 1289-1296.
[24] WOLFE R A. Organizational innovation: review, critique and suggested research directions [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 1994, 31(3): 405-531.
[25] PAVITT K. Innovation Processes [M]//FAGERBERG J, MOWERY D C, NELSON R R. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005: 86-114.
[26] VAN DE VEN A H, ANGLE H L, POOLE M S. Research on the management of innovation: the Minnesota studies [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[27] WALTER W P, KENNETH W K, LAUREL S-D. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41(1): 116-145.
[28] MURRAY F. Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering [J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31(8): 1389-1403.
[29] GASSMANN O, REEPMEYER G. Organizing pharmaceutical innovation: from science‐based knowledge creators to drug‐oriented knowledge brokers [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2005, 14(3): 233-245.
[30] STYHRE A, WIKMALM L, OLILLA S, et al. Garbage‐can decision making and the accommodation of uncertainty in new drug development work [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2010, 19(2): 134-146.
[31] PISANO G P. The evolution of science-based business: innovating how we innovate [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010, 19(2): 465-482.
[32] DOUGHERTY D. Trapped in the 20th century? why models of organizational learning, knowledge and capabilities do not fit bio-pharmaceuticals, and what to do about that [J]. Management Learning, 2007, 38(3): 265-270.
[33] CARDINAL L B, LEI D. Structuring research and development teams in the technological conversion process [J]. Team Performance Management, 2000, 6(3): 1-62.
[34] CHANDLER A D. The visible hand: the managerial revolution in American business [M]. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1977.
[35] MERTON R K. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
[36] HOUNSHELL D, SMITH J K. Science and corporate strategy [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[37] LAZONICK W, O’SULLIVAN M. Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology of corporate governance [J]. Economy and Society, 2000, 29(1): 13-35.
[38] SHAPIN S. The scientific life [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
[39] PISANO G. Can science be a business? [M]. Harvard Business Review, 2006.
[40] 王立新. 企业创新过程研究 [D]. 上海交通大学, 2006.
[41] ROTHWELL R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process [J]. International Marketing Review, 1994, 11(1): 7-31.
[42] 雷家骕, 林苞. 中国追赶发达国家应特别关注基于科学的创新及其产业 [J]. 理论探讨, 2014(2): 76-79.
[43] MOWERY D, ROSENBERG N. The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies [J]. Research Policy, 1979, 8(2): 102-153.
[44] GRAVES A. Prometheus: A new departure in automobile R & D? [M]. International Motor Vehicle Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
[45] GALANAKIS K. Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking [J]. Technovation, 2006, 26(11): 1222-1232.
[46] 林苞, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创新模式与动态——对青霉素和晶体管案例的重新分析 [J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(10): 1459-1464.
[47] 陈虹, 杨雅程, 雷家骕. 基于科学的企业演化的理论模型 [J]. 科学学研究, 2019, 37(7): 1268-1276.
[48] 张庆芝, 戚耀元, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创业企业发展与演化研究 [J]. 科研管理, 2019, 40(9): 108-119.
[49] 张庆芝, 段勇倩, 雷家骕. 基于科学的创新研究——以诺贝尔奖科学成果到商业产品为例 [J]. 科学学研究, 2015, 33(12): 1770-1778.
[50] TOOTELL A, KYRIAZIS E, BILLSBERRY J, et al. Knowledge creation in complex inter-organizational arrangements: Understanding the barriers and enablers of university-industry knowledge creation in science-based cooperation [J/OL]. Journal of Knowledge Management[2021-05-20]. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0461.
[51] BSTIELER L, HEMMERT M, BARCZAK G. Trust formation in university–industry collaborations in the u.s. biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2015, 32(1): 111-121.
[52] SCHUELKE-LEECH B A. Resources and research: An empirical study of the influence of departmental research resources on individual STEM researchers involvement with industry [J]. Research Policy, 2013, 42(9): 1667-1678.
[53] BERCOVITZ J, FELDMAN M. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level [J]. Organization Science, 2008, 19(1): 69-89.
[54] ASTEBRO T B, BAZZAZIAN N, BRAGUINSKY S. Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy [J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(4): 663-677.
[55] TARTARI V, PERKMANN M, SALTER A. In Good Company: The Influence of Peers on Industry Engagement by Academic Scientists[J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(7): 1189–1203.
[56] LACETERA N, COCKBURN I M, HENDERSON R. Do firms change capabilities by hiring new people? A study of the adoption of science-based drug discovery[M]//Business Strategy over the Industry Lifecycle. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2004: 133–159.
[57] COZZI G, GALLI S. Science-based r&d in Schumpeterian growth [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2009, 56(4): 474-491.
[58] GERBIN A, DRNOVSEK M. Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: A review and a conceptual framework [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2016, 41(5): 979-1076.
[59] BLUMENTHAL D, CAMPBELL E G, ANDERSON M S, et al. Withholding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty [J]. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997, 277(15): 1224-1228.
[60] RENAULT C. Academic capitalism and university incentives for faculty entrepreneurship [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2006, 31(2): 227-239.
[61] DI GREGORIO D, SHANE S. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? [J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(2): 209-227.
[62] SULLIVAN P H. Value-driven intellectual capital: How to convert intangible corporate assets into market value [M]. New York: Wiley, 2000.
[63] BLIND K, THUMM N. Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications [J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(10): 1583-1598.
[64] DECAROLIS D M, DEEDS D L. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 20(10): 953-968.
[65] CHEN J, JIAO H, ZHAO X. A knowledge-based theory of the firm: managing innovation in biotechnology [J]. Chinese Management Studies, 2016, 10(1): 41-58.
[66] CONCEICAO O, FONTES M, CALAPEZ T. The commercialisation decisions of research-based spin-off: Targeting the market for technologies [J]. Technovation, 2012, 32(1): 43-56.
[67] ARORA A, BELENZON S, PATACCONI A. The decline of science in corporate R&D [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(1): 3-32.
[68] WANG N, XIAO M, SAVIN I. Complementarity effect in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and acquisition of capital with embodied technology [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2020, 46(2): 459–482.
[69] CHEN Y F, VANHAVERBEKE W, DU J S. The interaction between internal R&D and different types of external knowledge sourcing: An empirical study of Chinese innovative firms [J]. R & D Management, 2016, 46(S3): 1006-1023.
[70] KLEVORICK A K, LEVIN R C, NELSON R R, et al. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities [J]. Research Policy, 1995, 24(2): 185-205.
[71] TETHER B S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis [J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31(6): 947-967.
[72] FRANKE N, SCHREIER M. Entrepreneurial opportunities with toolkits for user innovation and design [J]. International Journal on Media Management, 2002, 4(4): 225-234.
[73] GRETSCH O, SALZMANN E C, KOCK A. University‐industry collaboration and front‐end success: the moderating effects of innovativeness and parallel cross‐firm collaboration [J]. R&D Management, 2019, 49(5): 835-849.
[74] DU J, LETEN B, VANHAVERBEKE W, et al. When research meets development: antecedents and implications of transfer speed [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2014, 31(6): 1181-1198.
[75] WINK R. Gatekeepers and proximity in science-driven sectors in Europe and Asia: The case of human embryonic stem cell research [J]. Regional Studies, 2008, 42(6): 777-791.
[76] FONTES M, SOUSA C. Types of proximity in knowledge access by science-based start-ups [J]. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2016, 19(3): 298-316.
[77] HU T-S. Developments in interactive relationships and knowledge between KIBS firms and their clients in Taiwan [J]. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2017, 15(2): 257-271.
[78] STEINMO M, RASMUSSEN E. How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects [J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(3): 1250-1259.
[79] MARTIN R, MOODYSSON J. Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden [J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2013, 20(2): 170-187.
[80] FABER J, VAN DIJK J, VAN RIJNSOEVER F. Incentives and barriers for R& D-based SMEs to participate in European research programs: An empirical assessment for the Netherlands [J]. Science and Public Policy, 2016, 43(3): 414-428.
[81] PETRUZZELLI A M, ROTOLO D. Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry [J]. Management Decision, 2015, 53(9): 2088-2106.
[82] COLOMBO M G, D’ADDA D, PIVA E. The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: An empirical analysis [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2009, 35(1): 113-140.
[83] BELDERBOS R, GILSING V A, SUZUKI S. Direct and mediated ties to universities: "Scientific" absorptive capacity and innovation performance of pharmaceutical firms [J]. Strategic Organization, 2016, 14(1): 32-52.
[84] DEDRICK J, KRAEMER K L. Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry [J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(8): 1615-1628.
[85] TIJSSEN R, WINNINK J. Capturing 'R&D excellence': indicators, international statistics, and innovative universities [J]. Scientometrics, 2018, 114(2): 687-699.
[86] PEREZ J A H, KUNC M H, DURST S, et al. Impact of competition from unregistered firms on R&D investment by industrial sectors in emerging economies [J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018, 133: 179-189.
[87] SANTORO M D, BIERLY P E. Facilitators of knowledge transfer in university-industry collaborations: A knowledge-based perspective [J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2006, 53(4): 495-507.
[88] SANTORO M D, BETTS S C. Making industry - university partnerships work [J]. Research Technology Management, 2002, 45(3): 42-46.
[89] KENNEY M, GOE W R. The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford [J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(5): 691-707.
[90] GOLDFARB B, HENREKSON M. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property [J]. Research Policy, 2003, 32(4): 639-658.
[91] JENSEN R, THURSBY M. Proofs and prototypes for sale: The licensing of university inventions [J]. American Economic Review, 2001, 91(1): 240-259.
[92] LOUIS K S, BLUMENTHAL D, STOTO G M A. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1989, 34(1): 110-131.
[93] GARRONE P, GRILLI L, MRKAJIC B. Human capital of entrepreneurial teams in nascent high-tech sectors: A comparison between Cleantech and Internet [J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2018, 30(1): 84-97.
[94] PRODAN I, DRNOVSEK M. Conceptualizing academic-entrepreneurial intentions: An empirical test [J]. TECHNOVATION, 2010, 30(5): 332-347.
[95] COLYVAS J, CROW M, GELIJNS A, et al. How do university inventions get into practice? [J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(1): 61-72.
[96] AUDRETSCH D B, KEILBACH M. The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship [J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2010, 44(7): 1242-1254.
[97] BONACCORSI A, COLOMBO M G, GUERINI M, et al. University specialization and new firm creation across industries [J]. Small Business Economics, 2013, 41(4): 837-863.
[98] BUENSTORF G, FRITSCH M, MEDRANO L F. Regional knowledge, organizational capabilities and the emergence of the west german laser systems industry, 1975-2005 [J]. Regional Studies, 2015, 49(1): 59-75.
[99] GOETHNER M, WYRWICH M. Cross-faculty proximity and academic entrepreneurship: the role of business schools [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2020, 45(4): 1016-1062.
[100] FINI R, GRIMALDI R, MEOLI A. The effectiveness of university regulations to foster science-based entrepreneurship [J/OL]. Research Policy, 2020, 49(10)[2021-05-20]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104048.
[101] SHRADER R, SIEGEL D S. Assessing the relationship between human capital and firm performance: Evidence from technology-based new ventures [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2007, 31(6): 893-908.
[102] COLOMBO M G, GRILLI L. Founders' human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view [J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(6): 795-816.
[103] KNOCKAERT M, UCBASARAN D, WRIGHT M, et al. The relationship between knowledge transfer, top management team composition, and performance: The case of science-based entrepreneurial firms [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2011, 35(4): 777-803.
[104] VANAELST I, CLARYSSE B, WRIGHT M, et al. Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 2006, 30(2): 249-271.
[105] RICKNE A. Connectivity and performance of science-based firms [J]. Small Business Economics, 2006, 26(4): 393-407.
[106] KATHLEEN M E, CLAUDIA BIRD S. Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988 [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(3): 504-529.
[107] MURRAY F. The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life [J]. Research Policy, 2004, 33(4): 643-659.
[108] NERKAR A, SHANE S. When do start-ups that exploit patented academic knowledge survive? [J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2003, 21(9): 1391-1410.
[109] MAINE E, LUBIK S, GARNSEY E. Value creation strategies for science-based business: A study of advanced materials ventures [J]. Innovation, 2013, 15(1): 35-51.
[110] PELLENS M, DELLA MALVA A. Corporate science, firm value, and vertical specialization: Evidence from the semiconductor industry [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2018, 27(3): 489-505.
[111] DU J, LETEN B, VANHAVERBEKE W. Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners [J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(5): 828-840.
[112] PULIGA G, MANZINI R, BATISTONI P. An industry and public research organization joint effort for ITER construction: Evaluating the impact [J]. Fusion Engineering and Design, 2019, 146: 187-193.
[113] COLOMBO M G, GRILLI L. On growth drivers of high-tech start-ups: Exploring the role of founders' human capital and venture capital [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2010, 25(6): 610-626.
[114] VANACKER T, MANIGART S, MEULEMAN M. Path–dependent evolution versus intentional management of investment ties in science–based entrepreneurial firms [J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2014, 38(3): 671-690.
[115] BERTONI F, COLOMBO M G, GRILLI L. Venture capital financing and the growth of high-tech start-ups: Disentangling treatment from selection effects [J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(7): 1028-1043.
[116] BüRGEL O, FIER A, LICHT G, et al. Internationalisation of high-tech start-ups and fast growth-evidence for UK and Germany [J]. Zew Discussion Papers, 2000, 74-89.
[117] BOTTAZZI L, DA RIN M. Venture capital in Europe and the financing of innovative companies [J]. Economic Policy, 2002, 34: 229-269.
[118] COLOMBO M, MUSTAR P, WRIGHT M. Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2010, 35(1): 1-15.
[119] CUMMING D J, MACINTOSH J G. A cross-country comparison of full and partial venture capital exits [J]. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2003, 27(3): 511-548.
[120] MURRAY, G. The second 'Equity Gap': Exit problems for seed and early stage venture capitalists and their investee companies [J]. International Small Business Journal, 1994, 12(4): 59-76.
[121] BONARDO D, PALEARI S, VISMARA S. The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2009, 35(1): 141-180.
[122] MEOLI M, PALEARI S, VISMARA S. Completing the technology transfer process: M&As of science-based IPOs [J]. Small Business Economics, 2013, 40(2): 227-248.
[123] HELLMANN T, PURI M. The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital [J]. Review of Financial Studies, 2000, 13(4): 959-984.
[124] COLOMBO M G, MEOLI M, VISMARA S. Signaling in science-based IPOs: The combined effect of affiliation with prestigious universities, underwriters, and venture capitalists [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 2019, 34(1): 141-177.
[125] QUINTANA-GARCíA C, BENAVIDES-VELASCO C A, GUZMáN-PARRA V F. Science-based firms going public: The role of patent indicators and top management teams [J]. Industry and Innovation, 2016, 23(3): 243-259.
[126] THOMAS V J, BLIEMEL M, SHIPPAM C, et al. Endowing university spin-offs pre-formation: Entrepreneurial capabilities for scientist-entrepreneurs [J]. Technovation, 2020, 96-97[2021-05-20]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102153
[127] COLOMBO M G, PIVA E. Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups [J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(1): 79-92.
[128] FRANKLIN S J, WRIGHT M, LOCKETT A. Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2001, 26(1): 127-141.
[129] MATTHEW D L, BRIAN R G, AMY J H. Board composition from adolescence to maturity: A multitheoretic view [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(3): 416-431.
[130] FILATOTCHEV I, TOMS S, WRIGHT M. The firm’s strategic dynamics and corporate governance lifecycle [J]. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2006, 2(4): 256-279.
[131] BJORNALI E S, GULBRANDSEN M. Exploring board formation and evolution of board composition in academic spin-offs [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2010, 35(1): 92-112.
[132] LARGE D, BELINKO K, KALLIGATSI K. Building successful technology commercialization teams: Pilot empirical support for the theory of cascading commitment [J]. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2000, 25(2): 169-180.
[133] LIU C C, STUART T. Positions and rewards: The allocation of resources within a science-based entrepreneurial firm [J]. Research Policy, 2014, 43(7): 1134-1143.
[134] BRADLEY S R, HAYTER C S, LINK A N. Models and Methods of university technology transfer [J]. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2013, 9(6): 571-650.
[135] LINK A N, SIEGEL D S, BOZEMAN B. An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2007, 16(4): 641-655.
[136] GARUD R, GEHMAN J, GIULIANI A P. Serenipity arrangements for exapting science-based innovations [J]. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2018, 32(1): 125-140.