Carolin Haeussler

To Be Financed or Not… - The Role of Patents for Venture Capital Financing

This paper investigates how patent applications and grants held by new ventures improve their ability to attract venture capital (VC) financing. We argue that investors are faced with considerable uncertainty and therefore rely on patents as signals when trying to assess the prospects of potential portfolio companies. For a sample of VC-seeking German and British biotechnology companies we have identified all patents filed at the European Patent Office (EPO). Applying hazard rate analysis, we find that in the presence of patent applications, VC financing occurs earlier. Our results also show that VCs pay attention to patent quality, financing those ventures faster which later turn out to have high-quality patents. Patent oppositions increase the likelihood of receiving VC, but ultimate grant decisions do not spur VC financing, presumably because they are anticipated. Our empirical results and interviews with VCs suggest that the process of patenting generates signals which help to overcome the liabilities of newness faced by new ventures.

Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship

We examine the extent to which different types of substantive project contributions as well as social factors predict whether a scientist is named as author on a paper and inventor on a patent resulting from the same project. Using unique survey data from over 2000 life scientists, we find that the predictors of authorship differ from those of inventorship. A wider range of project contributions may result in authorship, and social factors appear to play a larger role in authorship decisions than in inventorship decisions. We also find evidence that project contributions and social factors interact in predicting authorship, suggesting that the two sets of factors should be considered jointly rather than seen as independent determinants of attribution. In addition to providing novel insights into the functioning of the authorship and inventorship system, our results have important implications for administrators, managers, and policy makers, as well as for innovation scholars who often rely on patents and publications as measures of scientists’ performance.

The Determinants of Commercialization Strategy: Idiosyncrasies in British and German Biotechnology

The intention of this paper is to investigate whether market–related factors have a stronger influence on the strategic decision making of ventures in “liberal market economies” than on that of their counterparts in “coordinated economies.” Thereby, I focus on a particularly important strategic decision that firms face—the commercialization choice. Using a unique survey data set on the commercialization of British and German biotechnology firms, I analyze the determinants of commercialization strategy, paying particular attention to national idiosyncrasies. Together, the findings indicate that the commercialization strategy follows distinct patterns in the British “liberal market economy” and the German “coordinated economy.”

Authorship and contribution disclosures

What do contribution statements on articles tell us that author order does not—and how can they be improved? Most scientific research is performed by teams, and for a long time, observers have inferred individual team members’ contributions by interpreting author order on published articles. In response to increasing concerns about this approach, journals are adopting policies that require the disclosure of individual authors’ contributions. However, it is not clear whether and how these disclosures improve upon the conventional approach. Moreover, there is little evidence on how contribution statements are written and how they are used by readers. We begin to address these questions in two studies. Guided by a conceptual model, Study 1 examines the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 articles to understand what information is provided by each. This analysis quantifies the risk of error when inferring contributions from author order and shows how this risk increases with team size and for certain types of authors. At the same time, the analysis suggests that some components of the value of contributions are reflected in author order but not in currently used contribution statements. Complementing the bibliometric analysis, Study 2 analyzes survey data from more than 6000 corresponding authors to examine how contribution statements are written and used. This analysis highlights important differences between fields and between senior versus junior scientists, as well as strongly diverging views about the benefits and limitations of contribution statements. On the basis of both studies, we highlight important avenues for future research and consider implications for a broad range of stakeholders.

Explaining Preferences for Control Rights in Strategic Alliances: A Property Rights and Capabilities Perspective Approach

Increases in alliance activity between research-intensive firms and incumbents is puzzling since it is challenging to contract upon highly uncertain R&D activities. Our paper extends prior research by exploring the relationship between firm capabilities and preferences for control rights. This link is important because the allocation of control rights has been shown to influence alliance outcomes. Using data based on a survey of biotechnology firms, we find that both current and future capabilities provide strong explanatory power for understanding preferences for control rights. Our results allow us to integrate aspects of the capabilities perspective into the property rights framework.

The changing geography of clinical research: a critical analysis of its drivers

Research and development activities have become more and more internationalized with emerging economies playing an increasingly important role. This phenomenon is particularly debated in the pharmaceutical industry where (Western) pharmaceutical companies have started to offshore clinical research to so-called nontraditional clinical research countries. This study empirically investigates the changing geography of clinical research between the years 2002 and 2012. Building on the concept of national innovative capacity (Furman et al., 2002, Res. Policy, 31, 899–933), we shed light on different drivers of countries’ attractiveness as a location for clinical research including arguments related to the supply (cost)-side, the demand-side, and the knowledge base. Our results challenge existing views on the extent of the phenomenon as well as the involvement of particular countries. Across nontraditional countries, the level of clinical research activities is driven by knowledge rather than cost arguments. Moreover, the rising strength of the knowledge base of nontraditional countries enables them to increasingly direct research in favor of local needs.

Prepublication disclosure of scientific results: Norms, competition, and commercial orientation

To disclose results before publication or not? That is the question. On the basis of a survey of 7103 active faculty researchers in nine fields, we examine the extent to which scientists disclose prepublication results, and when they do, why? Except in two fields, more scientists disclose results before publication than not, but there is significant variation in their reasons to disclose, in the frequency of such disclosure, and in withholding crucial results when making public presentations. They disclose results for feedback and credit and to attract collaborators. Particularly in formulaic fields, scientists disclose to attract new researchers to the field independent of collaboration and to deter others from working on their exact problem. A probability model shows that 70% of field variation in disclosure is related to differences in respondent beliefs about norms, competition, and commercialization. Our results suggest new research directions—for example, do the problems addressed or the methods of scientific production themselves shape norms and competition? Are the levels we observe optimal or simply path-dependent? What is the interplay of norms, competition, and commercialization in disclosure and the progress of science?

Developing Organizational Transactive Memory Systems: The Impact of the Costs of Reciprocity

Prior research has focused on how reciprocity can incentivize cooperative behavior among individuals. However, this paper argues that there are costs of reciprocity which so far have been widely neglected but which can have an adverse impact on intra-organizational knowledge collaboration. Potential knowledge seekers may hesitate to ask for help if they perceive the costs of reciprocity to be high. This can substantially impede the development of organizational transactive memory systems. Using a unique dataset of 212 German companies, we find that the costs of reciprocity indeed restrict the development of organizational transactive memory systems. Organizations can counter this adverse effect: Formalization of procedures for knowledge collaboration and organizational slack resources moderate the negative effect of reciprocity on the development of organizational transactive memory systems. An IT supported knowledge management system, however, shows no effect.