Generally, academic researchers focus on publishing on public journals while company researchers are more interested in patenting. Sometimes, it is hard to choose between publishing your good results on a journal and applying for a patent. It takes a couple of years or longer to get your results patented. Obviously, it's much quicker to publish your results in a good journal. A journal paper is important to a researcher, and an invention patent often means more. The question is how to choose properly between publishing and patenting?
I think it works like this: if the idea is good and something entirely new that has commercial potential, go for patenting. For theoretical findings, go for publishing.
If you are driven by science you go for publication. If you are geared for profit then you patend
Patent is not just done for profit sake but to more importantly, protect original ideas of a creation.
If you are working for an industrial company, they will value the patent more. If you are working for a university, they will appreciate the published paper. But there is no reason you cannot do both, as long as you get the patent first. Your subsequent paper will have as an early reference your patent number.
Seek quality advice from experienced professors that has published in both. If your research is unique, ground breaking and content is worth waiting for a long time then a patent is definitely worth going for. However, if time frame is of consideration or paper isn't academically and intellectually ready for patent then go for journal publication. Also define your aim. Industry employers usually place high value on patent publications.
If your work (intellectual property) can be sold, it is better to protect it with a patent than to publish it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism