202405070914

• Source: [ @vinig2015 Measuring the performance of university technology transfer using meta data approach: the case of Dutch universities ]
• Tags: #technology-transfer #patents

This paper reviews the idea of using the total number of Patents, Licenses and Spin-Offs as a metric for technology-transfer.

The paper assumes a fixed percentage of the published papers (say, 1%, 2% or 3%) can lead to a potential valorization project (PVP). Then it defines the actual valorization projects (AVP) and compares one to the other.

In this case, AVP stands for the sum of Patents , Spin-Outs , and Licenses (but the authors do not explain how they disentangle licenses to spinouts).

It is insane that this paper got published. Does not make any sense trying to define PVP with random percentages. It suffices to compare the number of activities and the number of publications.

Moreover, there is no discussion at all regarding the difference between technical universities (with much more applied research), medical centers, or research universities.

Using the ratio of AVP and papers, it can be seen that MIT (techincal) has a larger pool of tech transfer projects compared to Stanford. It can also be seen that the number of

With this metric, MIT and Stanford are more efficient transferring technology than, for example, the university of Leiden. The biggest problem with this approach is that patents and spin-offs do not have the same added value to the economy.

I have many concerns with this type of work. There are problems adding numbers (tables have results that don't add up), the discussion is incredibly poor, and there is very little extra knowledge. For example, they didn't even tried to get the number of published papers, they just used