IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jtecht/v40y2015i4p581-601.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sascha Friesike

    ()

  • Bastian Widenmayer

    ()

  • Oliver Gassmann

    ()

  • Thomas Schildhauer

    ()

Abstract

The shift towards open innovation has substantially changed the academic and practical understanding of corporate innovation. While academic studies on open innovation are burgeoning, most research on the topic focuses on the later phases of the innovation process. So far, the impact and implications of the general tendency towards more openness in academic and industrial science at the very front-end of the innovation process have been mostly neglected. Our paper presents a conceptualization of this open science as a new research paradigm. Based on empirical data and current literature, we analyze the phenomenon and propose four perspectives of open science. Furthermore, we outline current trends and propose directions for future developments. Copyright The Author(s) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jtecht:v:40:y:2015:i:4:p:581-601
    DOI: 10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Kellie L. Maske & Garey C. Durden & Patricia E. Gaynor, 2003. "Determinants of Scholarly Productivity among Male and Female Economists," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(4), pages 555-564, October.
    2. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    3. Björk, Bo-Christer & Solomon, David, 2013. "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 914-923.
    4. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    5. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    6. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    7. Volker Bilgram & Alexander Brem & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2019. "User-centric Innovations in New Product Development — Systematic Identification of Lead Users Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-tools," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem & Joe Tidd & Tugrul Daim (ed.),Managing Innovation Understanding and Motivating Crowds, chapter 7, pages 173-212, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2000. "Protecting Their Intellectual Assets: Appropriability Conditions and Why U.S. Manufacturing Firms Patent (or Not)," NBER Working Papers 7552, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Thomas W. Pike, 2010. "Collaboration networks and scientific impact among behavioral ecologists," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 21(2), pages 431-435.
    10. Christensen, Jens Froslev & Olesen, Michael Holm & Kjaer, Jonas Sorth, 2005. "The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation--Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1533-1549, December.
    11. Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Francesco Rullani, 2008. "Online Communities and Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 115-123.
    12. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    13. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," 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 217-273, Elsevier.
    14. Reitzig, Markus & Henkel, Joachim & Heath, Christopher, 2007. "On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey--Unrealistic damage awards and firms' strategies of "being infringed"," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 134-154, February.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Bozeman, Barry & Corley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 599-616, May.
    18. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    19. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    20. von Krogh, Georg & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Special issue on open source software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1149-1157, July.
    21. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    22. 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.
    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. Christian Matt & Christian Hoerndlein & Thomas Hess, 0. "Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    2. Jonas Van Lancker & Erwin Wauters & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2019. "Open Innovation In Public Research Institutes — Success And Influencing Factors," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-37, October.
    3. Heikkinen, I.T.S. & Savin, H. & Partanen, J. & Seppälä, J. & Pearce, J.M., 2020. "Towards national policy for open source hardware research: The case of Finland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do firms publish? A multi-sectoral analysis," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-05, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    5. Elias G. Carayannis & Dirk Meissner & Anastasia Edelkina, 2017. "Targeted innovation policy and practice intelligence (TIP2E): concepts and implications for theory, policy and practice," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 460-484, June.
    6. Petr Hájek & Jan Stejskal, 2018. "R&D Cooperation and Knowledge Spillover Effects for Sustainable Business Innovation in the Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Christian Matt & Christian Hoerndlein & Thomas Hess, 2017. "Let the crowd be my peers? How researchers assess the prospects of social peer review," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 111-124, May.
    9. Pedro Soto-Acosta & Simona Popa & Daniel Palacios-Marqués, 2017. "Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 425-440, April.
    10. Christopher S. Hayter & Einar Rasmussen & Jacob H. Rooksby, 2020. "Beyond formal university technology transfer: innovative pathways for knowledge exchange," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 1-8, February.
    11. Hakyeon Lee & Pilsung Kang, 2018. "Identifying core topics in technology and innovation management studies: a topic model approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1291-1317, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open science; Research management; Science; Open innovation; O31; O32; O33;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:kap:jtecht:v:40:y:2015:i:4:p:581-601. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.