[期刊] Retracted in Research Policy
RETRACTED: Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A
contingency perspective
Ulrich LichtenthalerCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the
corresponding author
Department of Technology and Innovation Management, WHU – Otto Beisheim
School of Management, Technology and Innovation Management, Burgplatz 2,
D-56179 Vallendar, Germany
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.011, How to Cite or Link Using
DOI
Permissions & Reprints
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article
Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief.
After discussions with the author about concerns raised by readers concerning
the papers he published in Research Policy in 2009 and 2010, the Research
Policy Editors have decided that the following two papers should be retracted:
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, The role of corporate technology strategy and patent
portfolios in low-, medium- and high-technology firms, Res. Policy, 38 (2009)
559–569, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.009;
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, Determinants of proactive and reactive technology
licensing: A contingency perspective, Res. Policy, 39 (2010) 55–66,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.011.
There are two main grounds for this retraction:
(1) In each case, the author failed to disclose (through specific citations,
or through a mention in the 'acknowledgements' section, or in a covering
letter to the Editor) the existence of other closely related papers by the
same author. In the absence of this information, the referees and editors
involved in handling these two Research Policy papers were misled as to the
level of originality of each Research Policy paper. If they had been aware of
those parallel papers, they would almost certainly have concluded that each
of the two papers in question did not represent a sufficiently substantial
and original contribution to knowledge in its own right to merit publication
in a leading journal like Research Policy.
(2) In the Research Policy papers and the other closely related papers, the
author has been inconsistent in his treatment of the variables. In
particular, variables treated as important in the 2009 Research Policy paper
are disregarded in another parallel paper (in R&D Management 2009), and vice
versa. In the case of the 2010 Research Policy paper, when it is examined in
conjunction with three other closely related papers (in Journal of Product
Innovation Management 2009, Strategic Organization 2009, and Organization
Science 2010), there seems to be an omitted variable bias problem that would
invalidate the conclusions of the Research Policy 2010 paper. In both cases,
this raises severe doubts as to the validity and robustness of the
conclusions drawn in the two Research Policy papers (and indeed in the other
parallel papers). If the referees and editors involved in handling the two
Research Policy papers had been aware of this (i.e., if their attention had
been drawn to the other closely related papers and they had spotted this
inconsistency), they would undoubtedly have rejected each of the Research
Policy papers on methodological grounds.
After the Research Policy Editors had made their decision to retract the two
papers (but before he had been notified of the outcome), the author wrote to
acknowledge a third problem with the Research Policy 2009 paper, namely that
the statistical significance of several of the findings had been misreported.
In the light of this new problem, the author asked to withdraw the Research
Policy 2009 paper. However, by then the editorial decision to retract that
paper on the original two grounds listed above had already been taken.
The Editors
Research Policy
July 201
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 76.29.45.27