Abstract

Peer-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.