Stars and Brokers: Knowledge Spillovers Among Medical Scientists

References

• Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60(2):323–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Cockburn I, McHale J (2006) Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. J. Econom. Geography 6(5):571–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, McHale J, Oettl A (2017) How stars matter: Recruiting and peer effects in evolutionary biology. Res. Policy 46(4):853–867.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aizenman J, Kletzer K (2008) Networking, citation of academic research, and premature death. NBER Working Paper No. 13891, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Fons-Rosen C, Zivin JSG (2019) Does science advance one funeral at a time? Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(8):2889–2920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Zivin JSG, Sampat BN (2011) The diffusion of scientific knowledge across time and space: Evidence from professional transitions for the superstars of medicine. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Zivin JG, Wang J (2010) Superstar extinction. Quart. J. Econom. 125(2):549–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ballester C, Calvó-Armengol A, Zenou Y (2006) Who’s who in networks. Wanted: The key player. Econometrica 74(5):1403–1417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belenzon S, Schankerman M (2013) Spreading the word: Geography, policy, and knowledge spillovers. Rev. Econom. Statist. 95(3):884–903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein S, Diamond R, McQuade T, Pousada B (2018) The contribution of high-skilled immigrants to innovation in the United States. Working Paper 3748, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Bloch F, Jackson MO, Tebaldi P (2016) Centrality measures in networks. Preprint, submitted March 19, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2749124.Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Soc. Networks 27(1):55–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borjas GJ, Doran KB (2012) The collapse of the Soviet Union and the productivity of American mathematicians. Quart. J. Econom. 127(3):1143–1203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borjas GJ, Doran KB (2015) Which peers matter? The relative impacts of collaborators, colleagues, and competitors. Rev. Econom. Statist. 97(5):1104–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2009) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Carpenter CR, Cone DC, Sarli CC (2014) Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Acad. Emergency Medicine 21(10):1160–1172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Catalini C, Fons-Rosen C, Gaule P (2020) How do travel costs shape collaboration? Management Sci. 66(8):3340–3360. Link, Google Scholar
• Collins HM (1974) The tea set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Sci. Stud. 4(2):165–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding WW, Levin SG, Stephan PE, Winkler AE (2010) The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Sci. 56(9):1439–1461.Link, Google Scholar
• Ductor L, Fafchamps M, Goyal S, van der Leij MJ (2014) Social networks and research output. Rev. Econom. Statist. 96(5):936–948.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fafchamps M, Leij MJ, Goyal S (2010) Matching and network effects. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 8(1):203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fracassi C, Tate G (2012) External networking and internal firm governance. J. Finance 67(1):153–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40(1):35–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman RB, Ganguli I, Murciano-Goroff R (2014) Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. Jaffe AB, Jones BF The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 17–48. Google Scholar
• Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 78(6):1360–1380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Mairesse J, Turner L (2007) Identifying age, cohort, and period effects in scientific research productivity: Discussion and illustration using simulated and actual data on French physicists. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 16(2):159–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han X, Small DS, Foster DP, Patel V (2011) The effect of winning an Oscar Award on survival: Correcting for healthy performer survivor bias with a rank preserving structural accelerated failure time model. Ann. Appl. Statist. 5(2A):746–772.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A, Sutton RI (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(4):716–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausman JA, Hall BH, Griliches Z (1984) Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents–R&D relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909–938.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollis A (2001) Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Econom. 8(4):503–530.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iaria A, Schwarz C, Waldinger F (2018) Frontier knowledge and scientific production: Evidence from the collapse of international science. Quart. J. Econom. 133(2):927–991.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (1999) International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Econom. Innovation New Tech. 8(1–2):105–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. 108(3):577–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jäger S (2019) How substitutable are workers? Evidence from worker deaths. Harvard University, Mimeo.Google Scholar
• Jaravel X, Petkova N, Bell A (2018) Team-specific capital and innovation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(4–5):1034–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones CI (1995) R&D–based models of economic growth. J. Political Econom. 103(4):759–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones BF, Olken B (2005) Do leaders matter? National leadership and growth since World War II. Quart. J. Econom. 120(3):835–864.Google Scholar
• Katz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Res. Policy 26(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lancaster T (2000) The incidental parameter problem since 1948. J. Econometrics 95(2):391–413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laudel G (2002) What do we measure by co-authorships? Res. Eval. 11(1):3–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin SG, Stephan PE (1991) Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. Amer. Econom. Rev. 81(1):114–132.Google Scholar
• Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J. Washington Acad. Sci. 16(12):317–323.Google Scholar
• Mairesse J, Turner L (2005) Measurement and explanation of the intensity of co-publication in scientific research: An analysis at the laboratory level. NBER Working Paper No. 11172, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• McEvily W, Reagans R (2005) Networks and knowledge transfer: The search-transfer problem reconsidered. Technical report, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
• Merluzzi J, Burt RS (2013) How many names are enough? Identifying network effects with the least set of listed contacts. Soc. Networks 35(3):331–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mokyr J (2005) The intellectual origins of modern economic growth. J. Econom. Hist. 65(2):285–351.Google Scholar
• Newman ME (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(2):404–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nguyen B, Nielsen K (2010) The value of independent directors: Evidence from sudden deaths. J. Financial Econom. 98(3):550–567.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (2007) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Bus. Rev. 85(7/8):162.Google Scholar
• Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(1):100–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oettl A (2012) Reconceptualizing stars: Scientist helpfulness and peer performance. Management Sci. 58(6):1122–1140.Link, Google Scholar
• Patel VL, Arocha JF, Kaufman DR (1999) Expertise and tacit knowledge in medicine. Sternberg RJ, Horvath JA, eds. Tacit Knowledge in Professional Practice (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), 75–100.Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Acad. Management J. 49(1):85–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polanyi M (1966) The Tacit Dimension (Anchor Day Books, New York).Google Scholar
• Rogers E (2003) Diffusion networks. Cross R, Parker A, Sasson L, eds. Networks in the Knowledge Economy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 130–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5, Part 2):S71–S102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Segerstrom PS (1998) Endogenous growth without scale effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(5):1290–1310.Google Scholar
• Thompson P, Fox-Kean M (2005) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: A reassessment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(1):450–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Torvik VI, Smalheiser NR (2009) Author name disambiguation in Medline. ACM Trans. Knowledge Discovery Data 3(3):11.Google Scholar
• Torvik VI, Weeber M, Swanson DR, Smalheiser NR (2005) A probabilistic similarity metric for Medline records: A model for author name disambiguation. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 56(2):140–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tuomela MS, Fegley BD, Torvik VI (2016) Introducing the Author-ity exporter, and a case study of geo-temporal movement of authors. SIG/MET Workshop, ASIS&T 2016 Annual Meeting, October 14, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Spiro J (2005) Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Amer. J. Sociol. 111(2):447–504.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldinger F (2010) Quality matters: The expulsion of professors and the consequences for PhD student outcomes in Nazi Germany. J. Political Econom. 118(4):787–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldinger F (2012) Peer effects in science: Evidence from the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany. Rev. Econom. Stud. 79(2):838–861.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Waldinger F (2016) Bombs, brains, and science: The role of human and physical capital for the creation of scientific knowledge. Rev. Econom. Statist. 98(5):811–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, vol. 8 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Quart. J. Econom. 113(2):331–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wellman B, Berkowitz SD (1988) Social Structures: A Network Approach. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (1997) Quasi-likelihood methods for count data. Pesaran MH, Schmidt P, eds. Handbook of Applied Econometrics (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 352–406. Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar