IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v88y2018icp428-436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition

Author

Listed:
  • Vicente-Saez, Ruben
  • Martinez-Fuentes, Clara

Abstract

Open Science is a disruptive phenomenon that is emerging around the world and especially in Europe. Open Science brings about socio-cultural and technological change, based on openness and connectivity, on how research is designed, performed, captured, and assessed. Several studies show that there is a lack of awareness about what Open Science is, mainly due to the fact that there is no formal definition of Open Science. The purpose of this paper is to build a rigorous, integrated, and up-to-date definition of the Open Science phenomenon through a systematic literature review. The resulting definition “Open Science is transparent and accessible knowledge that is shared and developed through collaborative networks” helps the scientific community, the business world, political actors, and citizens to have a common and clear understanding about what Open Science is, and stimulates an open debate about the social, economic, and human added value of this phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:428-436
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296317305441
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul A. David, 2004. "Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 571-589, August.
    2. Richard Langlois & Giampaolo Garzarelli, 2008. "Of Hackers and Hairdressers: Modularity and the Organizational Economics of Open-source Collaboration," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 125-143.
    3. Robert Cook-Deegan, 2007. "The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 131-131, June.
    4. Sotaro Shibayama, 2015. "Academic commercialization and changing nature of academic cooperation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 513-532, April.
    5. David, Paul A, 1998. "Common Agency Contracting and the Emergence of "Open Science" Institutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 15-21, May.
    6. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    7. Christopher Brown, 2009. "Ayresian Technology, Schumpeterian Innovation, and the Bayh-Dole Act," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(2), pages 477-486.
    8. Dirk Czarnitzki & Christoph Grimpe & Andrew A. Toole, 2015. "Delay and secrecy: does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 251-279.
    9. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    10. Waverly W. Ding, 2011. "The Impact of Founders' Professional-Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 257-273, February.
    11. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    12. Robert Cook-Deegan, 2007. "The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 133-156, June.
    13. Joel West, 2008. "Commercializing Open Science: Deep Space Communications as the Lead Market for Shannon Theory, 1960–73," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 1506-1532, December.
    14. Hamid R. Jamali & David Nicholas & Eti Herman, 2016. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-49.
    15. Mukherjee, Arijit & Stern, Scott, 2009. "Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 449-462, May.
    16. Dirk Czarnitzki & Christoph Grimpe & Maikel Pellens, 2015. "Access to research inputs: open science versus the entrepreneurial university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1050-1063, December.
    17. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    18. Ralph Schroeder, 2007. "e-Research Infrastructures and Open Science: Towards a New System of Knowledge Production?," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 1-17.
    19. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    20. Lee Davis & Maria Larsen & Peter Lotz, 2011. "Scientists’ perspectives concerning the effects of university patenting on the conduct of academic research in the life sciences," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 14-37, February.
    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. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Stefan Stieglitz & Konstantin Wilms & Milad Mirbabaie & Lennart Hofeditz & Bela Brenger & Ania López & Stephanie Rehwald, 2020. "When are researchers willing to share their data? – Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:88:y:2018:i:c:p:428-436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.