|
|
|
| Differences in Knowledge Maturity Between Industry and Academia from the Perspective of Core-Periphery Structure |
| Zhao Hongye1, Zhao Yi2, Zhang Chengzhi1 |
1.Department of Information Management, School of Economics & Management, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Nanjing 210094
2.Department of Management Science and Engineering, School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei 230601 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Knowledge maturity is crucial to academic innovation and industrial transformation. An accurate identification of differences in knowledge maturity between academia and industry can provide a basis for the allocation of innovation resources and talent development. However, existing studies often use entire papers as proxies for knowledge and estimate knowledge maturity based on the average publication year of references, overlooking the fine-grained knowledge embedded within papers and their heterogeneous maturation trajectories, thereby limiting the measurement precision. To address this, in this paper, we represent knowledge with fine-grained entities and propose a knowledge maturity evaluation framework based on the core-periphery structure, considering 1,845,637 papers in the field of artificial intelligence as research objects for the analysis. A computer science ontology classification model is used to extract knowledge entities from the papers and construct them as nodes in a dynamic knowledge network. Subsequently, a core-periphery partitioning algorithm is applied to identify the structural positions of these entities, trace their evolution path from the periphery to the core, and quantify their maturity using the interval between the first time when a knowledge entity enters the core and the publication time of the focus paper. Finally, the differences in the knowledge maturity utilization between academia and industry are examined, along with a multiple regression analysis. Entity evolution from the network edge to the core effectively characterizes maturity. This measure is significantly correlated with the paper novelty and disruptiveness. On this basis, the knowledge maturity of academic papers and academia-industry collaborative papers is confirmed to be significantly lower than that of industry papers. This study breaks through the previous analytical paradigm based on the overall literature and reveals such differences at the fine-grained knowledge entity level.
|
|
Received: 18 August 2025
|
|
|
|
1 赵丹晓, 龚红, 董姗. 知识成熟度对关键核心技术创新的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2025, 22(12): 2271-2279.
2 Corrocher N, Lenzi C. Exploring the sources of knowledge diversity in founding teams and its impact on new firms’ innovation[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2022, 32(4): 1091-1118.
3 Lin K X, Hu B B, Li Z X, et al. Knowledge substitutability and complementarity in scientific collaboration[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2025, 19(1): 101601.
4 Fleming L, Sorenson O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data[J]. Research Policy, 2001, 30(7): 1019-1039.
5 Capaldo A, Lavie D, Messeni Petruzzelli A. Knowledge maturity and the scientific value of innovations: the roles of knowledge distance and adoption[J]. Journal of Management, 2017, 43(2): 503-533.
6 Kuhn T S. The essential tension: tradition and innovation in scientific research[C]// Proceedings of the Third University of Utah Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1959: 162-174.
7 Bourdieu P. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason[J]. Social Science Information, 1975, 14(6): 19-47.
8 Foster J G, Rzhetsky A, Evans J A. Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies[J]. American Sociological Review, 2015, 80(5): 875-908.
9 Merton R K. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science[J]. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22(6): 635-659.
10 Mueller J S, Melwani S, Goncalo J A. The bias against creativity: why people desire but reject creative ideas[J]. Psychological Science, 2012, 23(1): 13-17.
11 Wang J, Veugelers R, Stephan P. Bias against novelty in science: a cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(8): 1416-1436.
12 Liang Z T, Mao J, Li G. Bias against scientific novelty: a prepublication perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2023, 74(1): 99-114.
13 Chen P Z. Recombinant reuse or recombinant creation? The impact of knowledge recombination strategies on new product performance[J]. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2023, 35(10): 1263-1277.
14 马荣康, 王艺棠. 知识组合多样性、新颖性与突破性发明形成[J]. 科学学研究, 2020, 38(2): 313-322.
15 Lai X P, Nie L B. Maturity of knowledge inputs and the breakthrough of key core technology[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(11): 6551-6570.
16 Clarysse B, Andries P, Boone S, et al. Institutional logics and founders’ identity orientation: why academic entrepreneurs aspire lower venture growth[J]. Research Policy, 2023, 52(3): 104713.
17 Merton R K. The normative structure of science[M]// The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973: 267-278.
18 Liang L Z, Zhuang H, Zou J, et al. The complementary contributions of academia and industry to AI research[PP/OL]. V2. arXiv (2024-09-18). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.10268.
19 Ahmed N, Wahed M, Thompson N C. The growing influence of industry in AI research[J]. Science, 2023, 379(6635): 884-886.
20 F?rber M, Tampakis L. Analyzing the impact of companies on AI research based on publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(1): 31-63.
21 Jee S J, Sohn S Y. Firms’ influence on the evolution of published knowledge when a science-related technology emerges: the case of artificial intelligence[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2023, 33(1): 209-247.
22 Dwivedi Y K, Hughes L, Ismagilova E, et al. Artificial intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2021, 57: 101994.
23 Schumpeter J A. A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939.
24 Fleming L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search[J]. Management Science, 2001, 47(1): 117-132.
25 March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87.
26 Arts S, Fleming L. Paradise of novelty—or loss of human capital? Exploring new fields and inventive output[J]. Organization Science, 2018, 29(6): 1074-1092.
27 Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2007, 52(3): 443-475.
28 Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, et al. Atypical combinations and scientific impact[J]. Science, 2013, 342(6157): 468-472.
29 Verhoeven D, Bakker J, Veugelers R. Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(3): 707-723.
30 Wu L F, Wang D S, Evans J A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.
31 Funk R J, Owen-Smith J. A dynamic network measure of technological change[J]. Management Science, 2017, 63(3): 791-817.
32 王春, 冷伏海. 基于应用基础研究的新兴技术方向成熟度评估方法研究[J]. 情报学报, 2025, 44(6): 660-674.
33 赵丹晓, 龚红. 知识成熟度、桥接科学家与衍生技术创新[J]. 南开管理评论, 2025, 28(10): 40-51.
34 Salatino A A, Osborne F, Thanapalasingam T, et al. The CSO classifier: ontology-driven detection of research topics in scholarly articles[C]// Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries. Cham: Springer, 2019: 296-311.
35 Salatino A, Osborne F, Motta E. CSO classifier 3.0: a scalable unsupervised method for classifying documents in terms of research topics[J]. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 2022, 23(1): 91-110.
36 Messeni Petruzzelli A, Ardito L, Savino T. Maturity of knowledge inputs and innovation value: the moderating effect of firm age and size[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2018, 86: 190-201.
37 Arts S, Hou J N, Gomez J C. Natural language processing to identify the creation and impact of new technologies in patent text: code, data, and new measures[J]. Research Policy, 2021, 50(2): 104144.
38 张鹤翔, 孙震, 唐苗. 基于多维知识元的科学—技术关联主题识别及发展态势测度研究——以人工智能领域为例[J]. 现代情报, 2026, 46(2): 61-76.
39 黄颖, 张慧, 叶冬梅, 等. 基于Gartner曲线的颠覆性技术生命周期模型构建研究——以新一代人工智能技术为例[J]. 现代情报, 2025, 45(8): 70-84.
40 关鹏, 王曰芬. 基于LDA主题模型和生命周期理论的科学文献主题挖掘[J]. 情报学报, 2015, 34(3): 286-299.
41 Evans J A. Industry induces academic science to know less about more[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2010, 116(2): 389-452.
42 Wang Y Z, Zhang C Z, Song M, et al. Exploring academic influence of algorithms by co-occurrence network based on full-text of academic papers[J]. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 2025, 77(4): 651-680.
43 栾心晨, 黄永源, 朱晟君, 等. 被低估的边缘: 边缘区域创新研究综述[J]. 经济地理, 2024, 44(11): 1-12.
44 Kuhn T S. The structure of scientific revolutions[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
45 Boland R J, Tenkasi R V. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing[J]. Organization Science, 1995, 6(4): 350-372.
46 Jeppesen L B, Lakhani K R. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search[J]. Organization Science, 2010, 21(5): 1016-1033.
47 Safadi H, Johnson S L, Faraj S. Who contributes knowledge? Core-periphery tension in online innovation communities[J]. Organization Science, 2021, 32(3): 752-775.
48 érdi P, Makovi K, Somogyvári Z, et al. Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network[J]. Scientometrics, 2013, 95(1): 225-242.
49 Raman R, Pattnaik D, Hughes L, et al. Unveiling the dynamics of AI applications: a review of reviews using scientometrics and BERTopic modeling[J]. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2024, 9(3): 100517.
50 Song B W, Luan C J, Liang D N. Identification of emerging technology topics (ETTs) using BERT-based model and sematic analysis: a perspective of multiple-field characteristics of patented inventions (MFCOPIs)[J]. Scientometrics, 2023, 128(11): 5883-5904.
51 Gl?nzel W, Thijs B. Using hybrid methods and ‘core documents’ for the representation of clusters and topics: the astronomy dataset[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(2): 1071-1087.
52 Wei W J, Liu H X, Sun Z L. Cover papers of top journals are reliable source for emerging topics detection: a machine learning based prediction framework[J]. Scientometrics, 2022, 127(8): 4315-4333.
53 Haeussler C. Information-sharing in academia and the industry: a comparative study[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(1): 105-122.
54 Martinez-Senra A I, Quintas M A, Sartal A, et al. How can firms’ basic research turn into product innovation? The role of absorptive capacity and industry appropriability[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2015, 62(2): 205-216.
55 Chen Z L, Zhang C Z, Zhang H, et al. Exploring the relationship between team institutional composition and novelty in academic papers based on fine-grained knowledge entities[J]. The Electronic Library, 2024, 42(6): 905-930.
56 Sauermann H, Stephan P E. Twins or strangers? Differences and similarities between industrial and academic science[R]. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010: Working Paper 16113.
57 Gans J S, Murray F E, Stern S. Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: intellectual property and academic publication[J]. Research Policy, 2017, 46(4): 820-835.
58 Al-Khalifa H S, AlOmar T, AlOlyyan G. Natural language processing patents landscape analysis[J]. Data, 2024, 9(4): 52.
59 赵毅, 章成志, 习海旭. 影响不同子领域国际合作的距离因素相同吗?——来自计算机科学学科的证据[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(12): 1458-1476.
60 Zhang L, Cao Z, Shang Y Y, et al. Missing institutions in OpenAlex: possible reasons, implications, and solutions[J]. Scientometrics, 2024, 129(10): 5869-5891.
61 Xu H M, Bu Y, Liu M J, et al. Team power dynamics and team impact: new perspectives on scientific collaboration using career age as a proxy for team power[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022, 73(10): 1489-1505.
62 Dessí D, Osborne F, Buscaldi D, et al. CS-KG 2.0: a large-scale knowledge graph of computer science[J]. Scientific Data, 2025, 12: 964.
63 Meng K, Ba Z C, Ma Y X, et al. A network coupling approach to detecting hierarchical linkages between science and technology[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2024, 75(2): 167-187.
64 Kedrick K, Levitskaya E, Funk R J. Conceptual structure and the growth of scientific knowledge[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2024, 8(10): 1915-1923.
65 Chen C M. The growth of scientific knowledge[M]// Mapping Scientific Frontiers: The Quest for Knowledge Visualization. London: Springer, 2003: 1-38.
66 Borgatti S P, Everett M G. Models of core/periphery structures[J]. Social Networks, 2000, 21(4): 375-395.
67 Kojaku S, Masuda N. Finding multiple core-periphery pairs in networks[J]. Physical Review E, 2017, 96(5): 052313.
68 Kojaku S, Masuda N. Core-periphery structure requires something else in the network[J]. New Journal of Physics, 2018, 20(4): 043012.
69 Tun? B, Verma R. Unifying inference of meso-scale structures in networks[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(11): e0143133.
70 Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S, et al. Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks[J]. Science, 2002, 298(5594): 824-827.
71 van Raan A F J. Sleeping beauties in science[J]. Scientometrics, 2004, 59(3): 467-472.
72 Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change[J]. Research Policy, 1982, 11(3): 147-162.
73 邱均平. 信息计量学(三) 第三讲 文献信息老化规律与应用[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2000, 23(3): 237-240, 192.
74 邱均平. 文献计量学[M]. 2版. 北京: 科学出版社, 2019.
75 Mukherjee S, Romero D M, Jones B, et al. The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: the hotspot[J]. Science Advances, 2017, 3(4): e1601315.
76 Lin Z H, Yin Y A, Liu L, et al. SciSciNet: a large-scale open data lake for the science of science research[J]. Scientific Data, 2023, 10: Article No.315.
77 Wu K Y, Sun J J, Wang J J, et al. How does science convergence influence technology convergence? Different impacts of science-push and technology-pull[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2025, 215: 124114.
78 Larivière V, Gingras Y, Sugimoto C R, et al. Team size matters: collaboration and scientific impact since 1900[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(7): 1323-1332.
79 Wagner C S, Whetsell T A, Mukherjee S. International research collaboration: novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination[J]. Research Policy, 2019, 48(5): 1260-1270.
80 Bercovitz J, Feldman M. The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: composition, social networks, and geography[J]. Research Policy, 2011, 40(1): 81-93.
81 Baraba?si A L, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks[J]. Science, 1999, 286(5439): 509-512.
82 Rafols I, Meyer M. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience[J]. Scientometrics, 2010, 82(2): 263-287.
83 Bush V. Science, the endless frontier[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945.
84 聂力兵, 龚红, 赖秀萍. 唤醒“沉睡专利”: 知识重组时滞、重组频率与关键核心技术创新[J]. 南开管理评论, 2024, 27(8): 86-97, 160.
85 Higashide N, Zhang Y, Asatani K, et al. Quantifying advances from basic research to applied research in material science[J]. Technovation, 2024, 135: 103050.
86 Zuckerman H. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States[M]. New York: The Free Press, 1977.
87 Xie X, Mao J, Li J. How does Nobel Prize awarding shift the research topics of Nobelists’ coauthors and non-coauthors?[J]. Journal of Informetrics, 2025, 19(1): 101602. 责任编辑 冯家琪） |
|
|
|
