Maybe in a poor country is better a patent.

A patent, may only be applicable in research related to biological, physical or chemical sciences, but for social sciences a good research publication in a good journal in the only option available.

However, a patent followed by a good publication is not a bad idea where ever it is applicable, as you may get royalty for your work if there are people ready to use it in future and peer recognition is an added benefit..

It depends. For researcher involved in university and teaching, a paper worth more than a patent. For researcher and businessmen, patent can be better. So it depends.

Its all about protecting your research to get commercialize by other. And i think if you really know the utility of your invention and really your invention is publicly demanded then it would be better to go for patent, and then discuss with your IP team and commercialize it by licensing. It gives you money reward for your future research.

But the most important thing is, before starting your research you should decide first weather you look for good publication or patent. Because both thing are different. For good publication you require a very good science in your paper, but unfortunately for patent you just require novelty and utility. And initial literature definitely solve this query i.e. whether patent or paper.

For patent you need to find out current public demand along with its IP valuation. And for publication you should no recently focused HOT scientific field.

Here i will share a very nice example of patent having very nice public utility. A patent for mosquito bats, US Patent 5,519,963 was awarded to Taiwanese inventor Tsao-i Shih in 1996 for such a device.

Patent=good publication+IP

I am sure that there is no need to talk about "article vs patent". For example, the Japanese articles are often accompanied with a pre-filed patent application.

We dont need to have high education (just a good imagination work) to make a patent but you need that to publish a paper. For instance, an "elastic waistband" can be patented but can not be published as a paper.

Patent certificates are nice to be hang on the wall!

Patent gives you a authority to sell your product whereas paper gives an idea of your work to others to do further research. A good patented product can be commercialized and gives value over an above a paper. Research paper is a discussion over your work done and patent is 1st step towards commercialized production of work.

Rajendra

Patent is for bragging rights. If it has a good economic potential, will also make good money for the inventor. It builds up resume. More practical application oriented.

Paper is to inform people about the potential uses of the findings for furthering knowledge. It also builds up resume.

Perhaps open access publications produced by researcher/ team 'A' are directly or indirectly exploited by researcher/team 'B' to propose a patent. The 'patent house' is obviously built from a combination of open access-produced bricks and private-produced bricks. The question is what fraction of the bricks from a patent house comes from unprotected open access information. And I even do not wish to mention the impact of 'spying'...

Patent is more worthy than Publication. Patent is based on the invention that people have made, whereas the Publication can be possible by Research or RE SEARCH

Patent = research + Tiral regisrty

Both are equally important..

A patent stands apart from a journal publication in that it is a new invention that can readily be commercialized. While a journal publication may well present an original idea substantiated by experimentation, it is useful only for further research and cannot directly be translated into a commercial product as it does not embody the minute details needed for development. A patent on the other hand covers in depth all the minute details needed for product development and is therefore more worthy than a journal publication. You would often find in application splash screens that the software is subject to one or more US patents.

Dear Marcel M. Lambrechts

One of the main rules in assessing a patent application is that the work mus not be a combination of prior arts. The first examiner focuses only on this aspect and can reject the application based only on the fact that the work is remotely close to several prior arts. In fact, the prior arts may not even be related to the field of one's application. There are two kind of rules: "A", the application is directly deduced from one prior art; "B", the application is deduced from using several parts worked previously. Considering this, I dont know how someone can does what you say! I should confess that I have problem with the rule "B"; if you can put some unrelated pieces together and come up with a new device, who is to say that you did not have the right to make it your own? When they are not able to see through what they studied on, it can be implied that they indeed could not see beyond what they already achieved! Sorry if my issue here seems somewhat harsh, I do not mean that; I like to hear your side of story too. Regards 

Patenting entails the grant exclusive right to prevent third parties from commercially exploiting - making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention, which is protected by patent for a limited period of time (generally 20 years). In return for this monopoly, the patent owner is required to disclose the technical information on the invention in order for others to access it and continue to innovate based on it.

• i agree 

A good patent is applied and practical than the theoretical research paper

Patent is by invention, whereas paper is by innovation. Publication in high quality journal also equally worthy.

t depends on the incentive system of your university. Many universities encourage peer-reviewed publications and don't have the same consideration for invention disclosures or patents. From an economic perspective, patents might have a greater impact, although that is not very usual.

Patents deals with pure innovation, it can be converted into a marketable product

Patent is better than good publication because of its promising results.

Patent is much more valuable for a researcher and its a well-established fact, but researchgate.net seems to not value it much. I wonder why.

Patent is very valuable, if well thought out and commercializability is considered from all aspects. There are a lot of junk papers as well as there are junk patents. So, one can to judge the value on a case by case basis.

Both are the best, when you have a patent, you can also make publication from it and cite it

The first thing about a patent is the higher cost compared to the article publication (an IP can cost from USD 5000 to 15000 whereas most of the good journals are free to publish). Even the open access fee for a research article is about USD 1750. Again, you can have a patent of almost anything if you can point out the novelty (even tiny) whereas most of the established journals (indexed and Q1, Q2 and so on) will put you to the critical review process. Some journal publishers also do the reverse but you can't find them in the indexed list. So, in terms of quality, the articles are traceable even by the journal itself whereas patents required to be read first. For clarity, articles are better than the patent, as the real pictorial descriptions and demonstrations are available whereas the patent doesn't. Most of the good journals will ask you to present a complete system with reason, methodology and results with the system photograph. Hence, to me, a good article is more valuable than a regular patent.

Patent is nothing related to a publication actually.Patent allow you not to use your ideas by others in future and claim. Whereas research article will allow others to be motivated by your concepts and allow them to work with.

Both is very important but it depends on country in which we collect our achievements. For patent we are waiting very long time and very often longer than for publishing of scientific papers. For patent we can receive 30 points but for scientific publications in good magazine we can receive much more points, e.g. 40. This is how it is in Poland. So we alone have to select patent or scientific paper.

Publishing papers in highly reputed SCI journals such as IEEE & Elsevier journals is really difficult and worth. But it takes more time and your paper should have added knowledge to the scientific community in the specific area. Paper publication brings a recognition from academic community. At the same time there many journals in which you can easily publish but they are not worth.

A patent requires the same idea in product or method form. Nowadays anything which is not already patented by others can be patented by anybody. Even if you have published a paper you can suitably modify it to get a patent. But if that idea does not have any business value, there is no use of patenting that. Patent also takes more time to get it granted but at the same time there is fast track system in some countries.

Patents generally are associated with possible products, processes; for the inventor, there is a possibility of revenue-generation or a rise in salary A good scientific paper may enhance the reputation of the researcher and/or his employer -- it may not lead to revenues. But, a patent is also a dwindling asset as it has a short life of about 21 years. Some companies in certain countries do infringe on patents and get away with it. If nothing is done the patent is worth nothing, unless it is exploited, or bought by a predator, who sees a threat to his or her product/service. Many patents-holders have died in poverty. Think of that. The researcher who published an original paper may be promoted and see a salary rise... should I say more?

this depends on the discipline and the circumstances. In social science patents are rare and progress is often the result of research which then leads to publications. In applied sciences, engineering, chemistry, etc. patents are important outcomes of research, leading to innovations of new technologies, processes, etc.

Agreed

Colleagues, a very interesting discussion over the past few months. Thank you.

What are the different types of patents available??

What is the significance or benefits to the university , to claim them...

Patent is to protect your intellectual property and to avoid technical theft. Publication should not be done, once you want to take patent. If you don't want to protect rights then publish the work

A patent is always a better option when you have to project your ideas and process. This will give you the power to restrict other people to not use your idea and products for the betterment of your business. A publication should be done, once you applied for the patent.

Sir As my Knowledge Goes a good paper publication on a good process and product of own and its patent Rights are more worthy than any thing else

100% I am supporting the technical words related to one of the Good researcher Dr.BTP Madhav. If we publish we will not be able to apply for a patent since we have disclosed to the public our invention. If we go for a patent it will hold up our publication process but could create value from the intellectual property. Only we can determine if the value of the patent and the cost of the patent are worth it.

To me, patent worths more. Still falls back to what the individual/team wants eventually - personal interest!

In my opinion, patent is more worthy than a publication. One should filed a patent application before publication to protect his intellectual property.

Depends on where you are now. Of course Patent is worthy for your career, in the sense of commercial view point as well. But if you are in tenure track then you might need good publication first. Quality patent needs deep work and time consuming. If you are already settle downed you can concentrate on patent. For the new concept really commercially worthy, people do not publish article because the new concept attracts the peer researchers most and they provide more efforts on that field.

Good review answer

Patent is always better than Publication

In my opinion both Patent and a good publication have their own values. Patent is more application oriented then a Publication, which is more theological in nature.

Providing a lasting legacy that will transform lives is more important. Choose the option that serves this purpose.

Patenting is more value than publishing a paper. Furthermore, patent process is difficult than publication process.

In my point of view “Patent” is always more valuable than paper publications because when the patent-able invention reaches to public domain either available as a product for everyone or full fill the market demand and inter alia that could be a meaningful patent which is always more better than publication.

The patent can be a logic outcome of a lab trial, genuine idea and/or a research paper. It may be very valuable as a knowledge compared to a paper and then can be pursued to technology readiness and fit a market need. This becomes a business with returns and possibly a clear impact to society. A research paper denote a research time and efforts towards a result that may or may not be patented. The paper shows the capacity of the author(s) to conduct research in a proper manner on a good topic. But also the paper can stop the patent to be disclosed if information has been disclosed publicly through the publication of the paper or in a talk in a conference.

Patent is more valuable then research article.

I agree that Patent is always considered as an original article and need no more peer -review like an article

Patent or Publication has their own worth and value.

We can't say which one is best.

Once we publish our idea in a journal, it can be applied by anyone.

But if you want to protect your idea having a commercial value, in my opinion it's better to patent it.

But at the end of scenario, for a Researcher both add value to his works.

Patent is always better than Publication

How patent publication is different from patent alone. Is it worth going for patent publication?

One stupid person told us that one patent is equal to ten publications. I wonder if that person knows what she was saying! Most patents that are filed nowadays do not have commercial value. No industrial applications whatsoever! Such patents are worthless and papers in good journals provide more visibility and help in dissemination of ideas.

"one patent is equal to ten publications" - I assume that according to statistics it is, at the time of the release of ten articles, ont patent is issued. You won't find good metrics here. But patents are fairer than articles, we defeat novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, and articles can be boring theory that no one cares about or never comes to fruition. Sorry, but I am on the side of patents.

Paper promotes science; patent promotes greed

Patents and publications are both important. For the first, we need to protect our invention intellectual property rights, and the second, are required to disseminate invention for the sake of the development of science and technology. So, we need the good strategy for getting both

In various academic calls, patents are considered when they are marketed