Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose This study aims to examine the impact of signaling through social media (SM) on funding achieved by start-ups. Design/methodology/approach This study follows a causal research design and is based on unique data set compiled from Crunchbase-Pro and Twitter. The sample size is 1,672 Indian start-ups. Heckman’s model and ordinary least squares regression is used to test the hypothesis. Findings Devising a thoughtful SM strategy, should be an integral part of the overall strategy of the start-ups looking out for funds. LinkedIn presence is in itself a positive signal. Active usage of Twitter and feedback from other Twitter users has a positive impact on funds raised by the start-up. Posting retweets and repetitive usage of URLs and media is not a predictor of funds raised by the start-up. Practical implications An early-stage strategy on SM adoption, especially Twitter can play an important role in attracting interest and attention of stakeholders. To capitalize SM, entrepreneurs should maintain an active SM account of the start-up. Originality/value India has emerged as one of the start-up hubs of the world. However, there is a dearth of literature on SM usage by start-ups in India. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is first of its kind and establishes the results empirically based on more than 100k tweets for a large pool of Indian start-ups.

There is a demand for providing evidence on the effectiveness of research investments on the promotion of novice researchers' scientific productivity and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. We used a mixed method approach to evaluate the funding effect of the New Investigator Fund (NIF) by comparing scientific productivity between award recipients and non-recipients. We reviewed NIF grant applications submitted from 2004 to 2013. Scientific productivity was assessed by confirming the publication of the NIF-submitted application. Online databases were searched, independently and in duplicate, to locate the publications. Applicants' perceptions and experiences were collected through a short survey and categorized into specified themes. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Of 296 applicants, 163 (55 %) were awarded. Gender, affiliation, and field of expertise did not affect funding decisions. More physicians with graduate education (32.0 %) and applicants with a doctorate degree (21.5 %) were awarded than applicants without postgraduate education (9.8 %). Basic science research (28.8 %), randomized controlled trials (24.5 %), and feasibility/pilot trials (13.3 %) were awarded more than observational designs (p   <  0.001). Adjusting for applicants and application factors, awardees published the NIF application threefold more than non-awardees (OR = 3.4, 95 %, CI = 1.9, 5.9). The survey response rate was 90.5 %, and only 58 % commented on their perceptions, successes, and challenges of the submission process. These findings suggest that research investments as small as seed funding are effective for scientific productivity and professional growth of novice investigators and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. Further efforts are recommended to enhance the support of small grant funding programs.

While seed funding for start-up companies certainly provides crucial cash necessary to conduct business, the advantages of these initial infusions go well beyond the actual monies received, particularly for university-based technology start-up companies. Additional benefits for the institution and community can be realized when the seed funding comes from the academic institution where the technology was invented. These benefits include expanded funding opportunities, hiring and retention of top entrepreneurial faculty, goal setting, entrepreneur development, economic development, and university engagement. Examples of seed loan programs at both the regional and university level are numerous, and several case studies are presented to highlight the variety of benefits. We end with a consideration of the metrics that can be used to measure the success of these programs, including revenue generation as well as more traditional technology transfer aims, such as development of industry partnerships and realizing public good from the commercialization of academic research.

Even though international network building is increasingly recognized to be important for research, the use of seed funding as a means of building researchers’ collaboration networks prior to actual grand writing network building and knowledge sharing has not been addressed. Research is a knowledge creation and knowledge sharing activity. Networking can increase social capital and thus enhance research productivity of HEI’s. International research collaboration networks are important for knowledge production, research productivity, and enhancing innovation capabilities. The enhancement of innovation capabilities is also linked to the mission HEI’s have of collaborating and enhancing the local business community in Finland. Innovation capabilities can be seen as innovation drivers, which improve the competitive advantages of a company or specific region. A number of instruments are in place for pure academic networking; however, these differ from seed funding as seed funding in most cases also includes networking outside of academia, e.g., local SME’s. This research depicts different seed funding sources used to construct international funding application research networks and also highlights the challenges, which should be addressed when considering this approach. The research question the paper addresses is, how do we best utilize seed funding to enhance knowledge sharing. The paper uses a case study approach presenting a number of successful seed funding research collaboration cases led by LAB University of Applied Science, which have also led to successful research funding applications with international partners. The study highlights possible pitfalls and also challenges encountered during the seed funding research collaboration period. Conclusions as to best practices with regards to utilization of seed funding to enhance knowledge sharing and creation are also presented. The findings emphasize the importance of strategic planning and proactive engagement in building effective research networks.

This case study provides details of a small-grants scheme (delivered by the Institute of Classical Studies since 2018) which is designed to support researchers in classics and related subjects to undertake activities whereby they are able to share their research with non-specialist audiences (that is, people who do not already have an academic knowledge of the field in which they are researching). It outlines the practicalities of running such a scheme, describes the outcomes and impact which the scheme has had to date, and concludes by offering recommendations for organizations which may be considering setting up such a grant programme specifically to support public engagement with academic research. The lessons learned as a result of this scheme could be readily applied to other academic disciplines (particularly – but not limited to – those with an arts and humanities focus which share characteristics with classics) or institutional contexts.

Innovations that initiate new technology cycles, i.e., radical innovations, bring tremendous value to Society and build for the companies that deploy them sustainable competitive advantages. However, large firms have typically been relatively inefficient at accessing from academia or technology start-ups such technological leaps. Indeed, most multiyear and multimillion dollar academia-industry partnerships have historically not resulted in any acceleration of the rate of deployment of game-changing innovations, which empirically proceeds in 25 year cycles, such as for example the expansion of the scope of the pharmaceutical industry from small molecules to biologics, or, projecting into the future, to siRNA or therapeutic stem cell technologies. Syndicated innovation venturing is a new strategic partnering concept described here that brings together actors from different economic segments in a non zero-sum game as a means to facilitate seed-funding, with the aim to de-risk technologies while reducing initial financial exposures. A case study in the pharmaceutical industry suggests that alleviating this hurdle may provide an appropriate environment to improve the dynamics of academic technology transfer to the commercial phase. By contributing to the de-risking of the creation of novel biotechnology businesses, this novel mechanism could help speed up the commercialization of emerging technologies on a large scale. At a time when knowledge-based firms such as pharmaceutical companies attempt to revisit their innovation models to advance science, in spite of an environment of increasing risk-aversion, such responses could tilt the balance in favor of disruptive products and sustained corporate financial performance by removing common barriers to radical innovation deployment.

The aim of this article is to assess the potential of using scientometric and patentometric indicators as a way of instrumentalizing the selection process of projects for seed capital funding. There is an increasing interest in technology based enterprises for their capacity to contribute to economic and social development, but there is also some difficulty in assessing non-financial criteria associated with technology for the purposes of financial funding. Thus, this research selected the case of the first enterprise invested in by the largest seed capital fund in Brazil, in order to create scientific and technological indicators and to assess the extent to which these indicators may contribute to understanding the market potential of the technology once it is assessed. It was concluded that scientometric and patentometric indicators favour the assessment process for non-financial criteria, in particular those criteria dealt with in this study: technology, market, divestment, and team.

This report is part of a broader effort by the World Bank Group to understand the motives and challenges of small entrepreneurs in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCS). The report's key finding is that, compared to entrepreneurs elsewhere, entrepreneurs in FCS have different characteristics, face significantly different challenges, and thus may be subject to different incentives and have different motives. Therefore, it is recommended that both the current analytical approach and the operational strategy of the World Bank be informed by the findings that follow. The report summarizes findings of recent World Bank Enterprise Surveys (ES) conducted across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Asia, and the Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region as well as Doing Business indicators and additional World Bank Group studies and field observations. The report finds that the majority of entrepreneurs in FCS countries are small, informal, and concentrated in the trade/services sectors. According to the ES, and after controlling for the level of development (that is, GDP per capita): 1) the average FCS firm in SSA and the ECA Region produces less output than non-FCS firms; 2) the average FCS firm in ECA is by 20 percent less likely to innovate (that is, to introduce/upgrade new products and services) than its non-FCS counterpart; and 3) FCS firms start smaller and grow significantly more slowly, or even shrink (in the number of employees) over time, compared to non-FCS firms in the Regions analyzed. The report also highlights the differences in sector and business environment characteristics between FCS and non-FCS business environments.