The analysis shows that scientists who actively collaborate with non-academic partners tend to produce more high-impact research. The study further highlights that joint research collaborations are more strongly linked to scientific impact than response-mode interactions. Additionally, scientists with a strong track record of previous achievements and higher academic rank are more likely to benefit from these collaborations. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497224001627#sec5
In my view, the study overlooks a critical issue: the risks of university-industry collaborations that can go disastrously wrong. The University of California's $25 million deal with Novartis gave the company partial influence over faculty research, becoming a cautionary tale of prioritizing funding over academic independence. The Theranos scandal, where Stanford researchers helped validate fraudulent blood-testing technology, tarnished the university's reputation when the fraud was exposed. Similarly, Volkswagen's emissions test cheating implicated the University of West Virginia, damaging both parties. Apple’s partnership with the University of California also drew criticism over allegations of unfair exploitation of university research. These examples raise a key question: How much should universities risk in partnerships that could compromise their most valuable asset—their hard-earned reputation?
Declaration of Competing Interests - On January 25, 2020, I argued that blindly trusting corporate research is deeply problematic, in my post titled "The University of the Future: From Knowledge Hubs to Guardians of Truth" https://pacheco-torgal.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-university-of-future.html
