Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science

Management Science

Volumn 62, Issue 10, 2016, Pages 2765-2783

  Boudreau, Kevin J ^a,b   Guinan, Eva C ^c   Lakhani, Karim R ^b   Riedl, Christoph ^d  

^a LONDON BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^c DANA FARBER HARVARD CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bounded rationality; Innovation; Intellectual distance; Knowledge frontier; Novelty; Project selection

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; MANAGEMENT; MANAGEMENT SCIENCE;

BOUNDED RATIONALITY; INTELLECTUAL DISTANCE; KNOWLEDGE FRONTIER; NOVELTY; PROJECT SELECTION;

RESOURCE ALLOCATION;

EID: 84962902387     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Agrawal A, Catalini C, Goldfarb A (2014) Crowdfunding science. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
2. Anand P (1993) Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).
3. Astebro T, Elhedhli S (2006) The effectiveness of simple decision heuristics: Forecasting commercial success for early-stage ventures. Management Sci. 52(3):395-409.
4. Bedard J (1989) Expertise in auditing: Myth or reality? Accounting, Organ. Soc. 14(1):113-131.
5. Berger J (1985) Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York).
6. Blackburn JL, Hakel MD (2006) An examination of sources of peerreview bias. Psych. Sci. 17(5):378-382.
7. Bornmann L, Daniel H-D (2008) The effectiveness of the peer review process: Inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angewandte Chemie Internat. Ed. 47(38):7173-7178.
8. Boudreau K, Lakhani K (2015) "Open" disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Res. Policy 44(1):4-19.
9. Brehmer B (1980) In one word: Not from experience. Acta Psych. 45(1):223-241.
10. Camerer CF, Johnson EJ (1991) The process-performance paradox in expert judgment: How can experts know so much and predict so badly? Ericsson KA, Smith J, eds. Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 195-217.
11. Campanario JM, Acedo E (2007) Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 58(5):734-743.
12. Chase WG, Simon HA (1973) Perception in chess. Cognitive Psych. 4(1):55-81.
13. Chi MTH (2006) Two approaches to the study of experts characteristics. Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Cambridge University Press, New York), 21-30.
14. Chubin DE, Hackett EJ (1990) Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy (State University of New York Press, Stony Brook).
15. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214(4523):881-886.
16. Coletti MH, Bleich HL (2001) Medical subject headings used to search the biomedical literature. J. Amer. Medical Informatics Assoc. 8(4):317-323.
17. Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Indust. Corporate Change 9(2):211-253.
18. Dasgupta P, David PA (1994) Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 23(5):487-521.
19. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 11(3):147-162.
20. Ericsson KA, Smith J, eds. (1991) Toward a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
21. Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Learning and Skilled Performance in Human Performance (Brock-Cole, Belmont, CA).
22. Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117-132.
23. Fox CR, Tversky A (1995) Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quart. J. Econom. 110(3):585-603.
24. Furman J, Stern S (2011) Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(5):1933-1963.
25. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London).
26. Graves N, Barnett AG, Clarke P (2011) Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. British Medical J. 343:d4797.
27. Hallen BL (2008) The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments? Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(4):685-718.
28. Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE, Thagard PR (1986) Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning and Discovery (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
29. Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL (2011) The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS ONE 6(7):e22475.
30. Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2003) A multilevel crossclassified modeling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 166(3):279-300.
31. Johnson EJ (1988) Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. Chi MTH, Glaser R, Farr MJ, eds. The Nature of Expertise (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 209-228.
32. Johnson EJ, Payne JW (1985) Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Sci. 31(4):395-414.
33. Johnson EJ, Russo JE (1984) Product familiarity and learning new information. J. Consumer Res. 11(1):542-550.
34. Johnson PE, Hassebrock F, Duran AS, Moller JH (1982) Multimethod study of clinical judgment. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 30(2):201-230.
35. Jones BF (2009) The burden of knowledge and the "death of the Renaissance man": Is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econom. Stud. 76(1):283-317.
36. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. (1982) Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
37. Kaplan S, Vakili K (2015) The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1437-1457.
38. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM (2010) Editorial peer reviewers? Recommendations at a general medical journal: Are they reliable and do editors care? PLoS ONE 5(4):e10072.
39. Kuhn TS (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
40. Lamont M (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
41. Langfeldt L (2006) The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res. Evaluation 15(1):31-41.
42. Lee CJ (2012) A Kuhnian critique of psychometric research on peer review. Philos. Sci. 79(5):859-870.
43. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in peer review. J. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. Tech. 64(1):2-17.
44. Li D (2015) Expertise vs. bias in evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. HBS Working Paper 16-053, Harvard Business School, Boston.
45. Manso G (2011) Motivating innovation. J. Finance 66(5):1823-1860.
46. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71-87.
47. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW (2008) Improving the peerreview process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Amer. Psychologist 63(3):160-168.
48. McNutt R, Evans A, Fletcher R, Fletcher S (1990) The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 263(10):1371-1376.
49. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810): 56-63.
50. Mollick E, Nanda R (2016) Wisdom or madness? Comparing crowds with expert evaluation in funding the arts. Management Sci. 62(6):1533-1553.
51. Murray F, O'Mahony S (2007) Exploring the foundations of cumulative innovation: Implications for organization science. Organ. Sci. 18(6):1006-1021.
52. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human Problem Solving (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
53. Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2014) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organization's filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Management J. 58(3):856-880.
54. Romer P (1990) Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. 98(5, Part 2):S71-S102.
55. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience-Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123(9):1964-1969.
56. Sahal D (1985) Technological guideposts and innovation avenues. Res. Policy 14(2):61-82.
57. Sandström U, Hallsten M (2008) Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74(2):175-189.
58. Stephan PE (1996) The economics of science. J. Econom. Literature 34(3):1199-1235.
59. Stephan PE (2012) How Economics Shapes Science (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
60. Sternberg RJ (1996) Costs of expertise. Ericsson KA, ed. The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), 347-354.
61. Stevens GA, Burley J (1997) 3,000 raw ideasD1 commercial success! Res. Tech. Management 40(3):16-27.
62. Sugimoto CR, Cronin B (2013) Citation gamesmanship: Testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review. Scientometrics 95(3): 851-862.
63. Travis GDL, Collins HM (1991) New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Sci., Tech., Human Values 16(3):322-341.
64. Utterback J, Abernathy W (1975) A dynamic model of product and process innovation. Omega 3(6):639-656.
65. Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468-472.
66. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers? Recommendations: A randomized trial. British Medical J. 318(7175):23-27.
67. Weitzman ML (1998) Recombinant growth. Quart. J. Econom. 113(2):331-360.
68. Williams H (2013) Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. J. Political Econom. 121(1): 1-27.
69. Xie Y, Killewald AA (2012) Is American science in decline? (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).