AbstractPeer-review of scientific publications contributes to the value of patented information by providing capital markets with a clear signal of the quality of proprietary information enclosed. However replicating the peer-review process in the patent system does not replicate the advantages of the unique dynamic peer-review normally represents. In fact intervention though peer-review of patents can be counterproductive and distort patent users' incentives to gather information about the quality of patents. This paper comments on the implications of the credence effect of patents such as the value of the movement of scientists between the public-private divide and the imperative to patent and publish for biotechnology firms.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Can Drug Patents Be Morally Justified?Sigrid Sterckx - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):81-92.
Promoting F.A.I.T.H. In Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (2):181-188.
Appendix. Comparing Peer Review and Information Prizes: A Possible Economics Experiment.Robin Hanson - 1995 - Social Epistemology 9 (1):49-55.
Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
Surgical Patents and Patients — the Ethical Dilemmas.Tadeusz Tołłoczko - 2005 - Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (1):61-69.
The Tragedy of the Common Reviewers: The Peer Review Process.Ulysses Paulino De Albuquerque - unknown