IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v11y2017i2p44-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration?

Author

Listed:
  • Joanna Chataway

    (University of Sussex (UK))

  • Sarah Parks

    (University of Sussex (UK))

  • Elta Smith

    (RAND Europe (UK))

Abstract

Open science represents a challenge to traditional modes of scientific practice and collaboration. Knowledge exchange is still heavily influenced by researchers’ ambitions to publish in highly cited journals and within ‘closed partnerships’ where interactions are based upon intellectual property rights. However, perceived inefficiencies, a desire to make publicly funded research available to all and a crisis of confidence in the quality of research published in top journals all serve to fuel demands for more openness in the conduct of science and the exchange of scientific knowledge. Whilst there is a strong logic behind the contention that increased openness will promote efficiencies, quality and fairness, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact on university/industry collaboration and the balance that needs to be struck between open and closed approaches. Policy obstacles are also likely to impede the pace of change.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:44-53
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2017/07/02/1171239633/4-Chataway-44-53.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Seth Cooper & Firas Khatib & Adrien Treuille & Janos Barbero & Jeehyung Lee & Michael Beenen & Andrew Leaver-Fay & David Baker & Zoran Popović & Foldit players, 2010. "Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7307), pages 756-760, August.
    2. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. David Holmes, 2016. "A new chapter in innovation," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7602), pages 54-55, May.
    4. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.
    5. Owen, Geoffrey & Hopkins, Michael M., 2016. "Science, the State and the City: Britain's Struggle to Succeed in Biotechnology," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198728009, Decembrie.
    6. Neil Savage, 2016. "Competition: Unlikely partnerships," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7602), pages 56-58, May.
    7. Chataway, Joanna & Hanlin, Rebecca & Mugwagwa, Julius & Muraguri, Lois, 2010. "Global health social technologies: Reflections on evolving theories and landscapes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1277-1288, December.
    8. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    9. Philippe Vincent-Lamarre & Jade Boivin & Yassine Gargouri & Vincent Larivière & Stevan Harnad, 2016. "Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: The MELIBEA score," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(11), pages 2815-2828, November.
    10. Leonard P Freedman & Iain M Cockburn & Timothy S Simcoe, 2015. "The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-9, June.
    11. Hopkins, Michael M. & Martin, Paul A. & Nightingale, Paul & Kraft, Alison & Mahdi, Surya, 2007. "The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 566-589, May.
    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. Sitnicki Maksym W., 2018. "Determining the Priorities of the Development of EU Research Universities Based on the Analysis of Rating Indicators of World-Class Universities," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 8(1), pages 76-100, June.
    2. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
    3. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.

    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. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    2. Colin F. Camerer & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Teck-Hua Ho & Jürgen Huber & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Gideon Nave & Brian A. Nosek & Thomas Pfeiffer & Adam Altmejd & Nick Buttrick , 2018. "Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 637-644, September.
    3. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    4. Malika Ihle & Isabel S. Winney & Anna Krystalli & Michael Croucher, 2017. "Striving for transparent and credible research: practical guidelines for behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(2), pages 348-354.
    5. Bernhard Voelkl & Lucile Vogt & Emily S Sena & Hanno Würbel, 2018. "Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Yuan-Cheih Chang & Phil Yihsing Yang & Tung-Fei Tsai-Lin & Hui-Ru Chi, 2011. "How University Departmens respond to the Rise of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Pasteur's Quadrant Explanation," DRUID Working Papers 11-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    7. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    8. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    9. Lehrer, Mark & Nell, Phillip & Gärber, Lisa, 2007. "A National Systems View of University Development: Towards a Broadened Perspective on the Entrepreneurial University Based on the German and US Experience," Kiel Working Papers 1370, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Valeria Arza & Mariela Carattoli, 2017. "Personal ties in university-industry linkages: a case-study from Argentina," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 814-840, August.
    11. Michaël Bikard, 2018. "Made in Academia: The Effect of Institutional Origin on Inventors’ Attention to Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 818-836, October.
    12. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    13. Funk, Russell J. & Glennon, Britta & Lane, Julia & Murciano-Goroff, Raviv & Ross, Matthew B., 2019. "Money for Something: Braided Funding and the Structure and Output of Research Groups," IZA Discussion Papers 12762, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Tüzin Baycan & Roger Stough, 2013. "Bridging knowledge to commercialization: the good, the bad, and the challenging," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(2), pages 367-405, April.
    15. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    18. Franzoni, Chiara & Sauermann, Henry, 2014. "Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 1-20.
    19. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Time to patent at the USPTO: the case of emerging entrepreneurial firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 923-952, August.
    20. Michaël Bikard & Matt Marx, 2020. "Bridging Academia and Industry: How Geographic Hubs Connect University Science and Corporate Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3425-3443, August.
    21. Ki-Seok Kwon & Ben R. Martin, 2012. "Synergy or separation mode: the relationship between the academic research and the knowledge-transfer activities of Korean academics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(1), pages 177-200, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    open science; open access; knowledge exchange; university/industry collaborations; science policy; research funders;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J28 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hig:fsight:v:11:y:2017:i:2:p:44-53. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.