IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v7y2019i3p46-d244757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Fell

    (UCL Energy Institute, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK)

Abstract

A common motivation for increasing open access to research findings and data is the potential to create economic benefits—but evidence is patchy and diverse. This study systematically reviewed the evidence on what kinds of economic impacts (positive and negative) open science can have, how these comes about, and how benefits could be maximized. Use of open science outputs often leaves no obvious trace, so most evidence of impacts is based on interviews, surveys, inference based on existing costs, and modelling approaches. There is indicative evidence that open access to findings/data can lead to savings in access costs, labour costs and transaction costs. There are examples of open science enabling new products, services, companies, research and collaborations. Modelling studies suggest higher returns to R&D if open access permits greater accessibility and efficiency of use of findings. Barriers include lack of skills capacity in search, interpretation and text mining, and lack of clarity around where benefits accrue. There are also contextual considerations around who benefits most from open science (e.g., sectors, small vs. larger companies, types of dataset). Recommendations captured in the review include more research, monitoring and evaluation (including developing metrics), promoting benefits, capacity building and making outputs more audience-friendly.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:3:p:46-:d:244757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/46/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/3/46/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Oecd, 2015. "Making Open Science a Reality," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 25, OECD Publishing.
    3. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    4. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    5. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2015. "Markets versus spillovers in outflows of university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 50-66.
    6. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    7. Neil Savage, 2016. "Competition: Unlikely partnerships," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7602), pages 56-58, May.
    8. John Houghton & Peter Sheehan, 2009. "Estimating the Potential Impacts of Open Access to Research Findings," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 127-142, March.
    9. Joanna Chataway & Sarah Parks & Elta Smith, 2017. "How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 11(2), pages 44-53.
    10. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Almeida Fernando, 2021. "Open Data’s Role in Social Innovation Initiatives to Fight COVID-19," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 29(3), pages 2-19, September.
    2. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    3. Carmen López-Vergara & Pilar Flores Asenjo & Alfonso Rosa-García, 2020. "Incentives to Open Access: Perspectives of Health Science Researchers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    2. Martin Beraja & David Y Yang & Noam Yuchtman, 2023. "Data-intensive Innovation and the State: Evidence from AI Firms in China," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(4), pages 1701-1723.
    3. Johannes L EugsterInter & Giang Ho & Florence Jaumotte & Roberto Piazza, 2022. "International knowledge spillovers [The race between man and machine: implications of technology for growth, factor shares, and employment]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(6), pages 1191-1224.
    4. Yuandi Wang & Ruifeng Hu & Weiping Li & Xiongfeng Pan, 2016. "Does teaching benefit from university–industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and engagement," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1037-1055, March.
    5. Baslandze, Salomé & Argente, David & Hanley, Douglas & Moreira, Sara, 2020. "Patents to Products: Product Innovation and Firm Dynamics," CEPR Discussion Papers 14692, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. International Monetary Fund [IMF], 2018. "World Economic Outlook, April 2018: Cyclical Upswing, Structural Change," Working Papers id:12768, eSocialSciences.
    7. Christian M. Stracke & Daniel Burgos & Gema Santos-Hermosa & Aras Bozkurt & Ramesh Chander Sharma & Cécile Swiatek Cassafieres & Andreia Inamorato dos Santos & Jon Mason & Ebba Ossiannilsson & Jin Gon, 2022. "Responding to the Initial Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of International Responses and Impact in School and Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, February.
    8. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    9. André Spithoven & Jef Vlegels & Walter Ysebaert, 2021. "Commercializing academic research: a social network approach exploring the role of regions and distance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1196-1231, August.
    10. Kim, Jinyoung, 2022. "Teamwork in innovation under time pressure," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Teresa Gomez-Diaz & Tomas Recio, 2020. "A policy and legal Open Science framework: a proposal," Working Papers hal-02962399, HAL.
    12. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2019. "The long-run impact of new medical ideas on cancer survival and mortality," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(7), pages 722-740, October.
    13. Kuosmanen, Natalia & Valmari, Nelli, 2023. "Renewal of Companies Through Product Switching," ETLA Working Papers 104, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    14. Wang, Shanchao & Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G., 2023. "R&D Lags in Economic Models," Staff Papers 330085, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    15. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and Cumulative Innovation:Causal Evidence from the Courts," IIR Working Paper 13-16, Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    16. Basso, Henrique S. & Jimeno, Juan F., 2021. "From secular stagnation to robocalypse? Implications of demographic and technological changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 833-847.
    17. Núria Bautista-Puig & Daniela De Filippo & Elba Mauleón & Elías Sanz-Casado, 2019. "Scientific Landscape of Citizen Science Publications: Dynamics, Content and Presence in Social Media," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, February.
    18. Diane Coyle & Jen‐Chung Mei, 2023. "Diagnosing the UK productivity slowdown: which sectors matter and why?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(359), pages 813-850, July.
    19. Ufuk Akcigit & Sina T. Ates, 2023. "What Happened to US Business Dynamism?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(8), pages 2059-2124.
    20. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:7:y:2019:i:3:p:46-:d:244757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.