Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 581-601

  Friesike, Sascha ^a,b   Widenmayer, Bastian ^d   Gassmann, Oliver ^c   Schildhauer, Thomas ^a  

^a Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

^d Bystronic Laser AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Open innovation; Open science; Research management; Science

Indexed keywords

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CORPORATE INNOVATION; EMPIRICAL DATA; FRONT END; INNOVATION PROCESS; OPEN INNOVATION; OPEN SCIENCE; RESEARCH MANAGEMENT; SCIENCE;

INNOVATION;

EID: 84912551874     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Cham: Springer.
2. Bilgram, V., Brem, A., & Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-centric innovations in new product development—Systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management,12(3), 419–458.
3. Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics,7(4), 914–923.
4. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy,33(4), 599–616.
5. Braun, A., Gomez, I., Mendez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics,24(2), 181–200.
6. Bullinger, A. C., Neyer, A.-K., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. M. (2010). Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management,19(3), 290–303.
7. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
8. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,44(3), 35–41.
9. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
10. Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjær, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy,34(10), 1533–1549.
11. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552.
12. Dahlander, L., Fredriksen, L., & Rullani, F. (2008). Online communities and open innovation: Governance and symbolic value creation. Industry and Innovation,15(2), 115–123.
13. Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy,39(6), 600–709.
14. Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Lambert, S., Lengenfelder, A., Leonard, C., Mele, S., Polydoratou, P., Ross, D., Ruiz-Perez, S., Schimmer, R., Swaisland, M., & van der Stelt, W. (2010). First results of the SOAP project. Open access publishing in 2010, working paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0506v1
15. De Roure, D., Goble, C., Aleksejevs, S., Bechhofer, S., & Bhagat, J. (2010). Towards open science: the myExperiment approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience,22, 2335–2353.
16. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532–550.
17. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS. Political Science and Politics,31(4), 847–856.
18. Franke, N., von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,23(4), 301–315.
19. Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy,43(1), 1–20.
20. Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–9 July.
21. Gassmann, O., Kausch, C., & Enkel, E. (2010). Negative side effects of customer integration. International Journal of Technology Management,50(1), 43–63.
22. Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (2007). The internationalisation of research and development in Swiss and German born globals: Survey and case study evidence. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,4(3), 214–233.
23. Gentil-Beccot, A., & Mele, S. (2009). Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics. How a community stopped worrying about journals and learned to love repositories. http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5418
24. Gowers, T., & Nielsen, M. (2009). Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature,461, 879–881.
25. Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2012). Open Science: A New, “Trust Technology”? Science Communication,34, 679–689.
26. Haeussler, C. (2011). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study. Research Policy,40(1), 105–122.
27. Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Inter-organizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal,14(5), 371–385.
28. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns 1960. Research Policy,31(4), 477–492.
29. Hagström, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
30. Herstatt, C., & Kalogerakis, K. (2005). How to use analogies for breakthrough innovations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,27(3), 418–436.
31. Herzog, P. (2011). Open and closed innovation: Different cultures for different strategies. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
32. Hicks, D. (1995). Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change,4(2), 401–424.
33. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy,35(5), 715–728.
34. Howells, J. (2008). New directions in R&D: Current and prospective challenges. R&D Management,38(3), 241–252.
35. Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist,39(4), 290–306.
36. Jong, S., & Slavova, K. (2014). When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development. Research Policy,43(4), 645–654.
37. Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management,12(1), 7–19.
38. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review,82(10), 76–84.
39. Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new Research-and-Development. Harvard Business Review,70(4), 70–78.
40. Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., et al. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “Fuzzy Front End”. Research and Technology Management,44(2), 46–55.
41. Kuhn, T. (1962). Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social media and the production of knowledge: A return to little science? Social Epistemology,24, 219–237.
43. Luethje, C. (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field—An empirical study of sports-related consumers. Technovation,23(9), 683–695.
44. Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry,41(4), 555–564.
45. McCain, K. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values,16, 491–516.
46. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2013). Digital Transformations of Scholarship and Knowledge. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 307–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Mukherjee, A., & Stern, S. (2009). Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science. International Journal of Industrial Organization,27, 449–462.
49. Murray, F. (2006). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper.
50. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2010). Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization Science,21(2), 554–572.
51. Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Open science: Tools, approaches, and implications. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing,14, 540–544.
52. Nielsen, M. (2011). An informal definition of open science. The OpenScience Project. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=454
53. Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
54. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002). Postnote—Peer review, (182), 1–4. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn182.pdf.
55. Pike, T. W. (2010). Collaboration networks and scientific impact among behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology,21(2), 431–435.
56. Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management,36(3), 307–318.
57. Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy,35(8), 1122–1130.
58. Piwowar, H. A. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature,493, 159.
59. Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology,110, 1132–1205.
60. Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
61. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., & Snee, H. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,368, 4039–4056.
62. Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed”. Research Policy,36(1), 134–154.
63. Rhoten, D., & Powell, W. W. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,3, 345–373.
64. Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday,19, 9.
65. Schildhauer, T. (2011). Open Innovation und digitale Kommunikation – Vier Thesen zum Aufbruch in neue und unbekannte Welten. In T. Schildhauer, N. Tropisch, & C. Busch (Eds.), Magie und Realität des Heldenprinzips heute (pp. 152–157). Münster: Verlagshaus Monsenstein und Vannerdat.
66. Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management,40(3), 281–291.
67. Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature,34, 1199–1235.
68. Tacke, O. (2010) Open science 2.0: how research and education can benefit from open innovation and web 2.0. 1. Symposium on Collective Intelligence (COLLIN 2010).
69. Thursby, M., Thursby, J., Haeussler, C., and Jiang, L. (2009) Do academic scientists freely share information? Not necessarily. Vox News 29 Nov. 2009.
70. Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and industrial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review,6(2), 283–311.
71. van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,29(6–7), 423–437.
72. van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of open innovation: Past research, current research and future directions. International Journal of Technology Management,52(3–4), 221–235.
73. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science,32(7), 791–805.
74. von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management,36(3), 295–306.
75. Von Krogh, G., & von Hippel, E. (2003). Open source software: Introduction. Research Policy,32(7), 1149–1157.
76. Waldrop, M. M. (2008) Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk? Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk
77. West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry & Innovation,15(2), 223–231.
78. Ziegler, N., Gassmann, O., & Friesike, S. (2014). Why do firms give away their patents for free? World Patent Information,37, 19–25.