IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/streco/v18y2007i2p167-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science

Author

Listed:
  • Carayol, Nicolas
  • Dalle, Jean-Michel

Abstract

In this paper we present an original model of sequential problem choice within scientific communities. Disciplinary knowledge is accumulated in the form of a growing tree-like web of research areas. Knowledge production is sequential since the problems addressed generate new problems that may in turn be handled. This model allows us to study how the reward system in science influences the scientific community in stochastically selecting problems at each period. Long term evolution and generic features of the emerging disciplines as well as relative efficiency of problem selection are analyzed.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Carayol, Nicolas & Dalle, Jean-Michel, 2007. "Sequential problem choice and the reward system in Open Science," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 167-191, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:streco:v:18:y:2007:i:2:p:167-191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954-349X(06)00016-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Recombinant Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 331-360.
    3. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Nicolas Carayol, 2000. "Modeling creation vs. diffusion of structured knowledge," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01n04), pages 353-368.
    6. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    7. Carmichael, H Lorne, 1988. "Incentives in Academics: Why Is There Tenure?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(3), pages 453-472, June.
    8. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908, Elsevier.
    9. Levin, Sharon G & Stephan, Paula E, 1991. "Research Productivity over the Life Cycle: Evidence for Academic Scientists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 114-132, March.
    10. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. N. Gilbert, 1997. "A Simulation of the Structure of Academic Science," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 2(2), pages 91-105, June.
    12. Franck Plouraboue & Alexandre Steyer & Jean-Benoit Zimmermann, 1998. "Learing Induced Criticality In Consumers' Adoption Pattern: A Neural Network Approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 73-90.
    13. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    14. Lazear, Edward P, 1997. "Incentives in Basic Research," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 167-197, January.
    15. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1987. "Reflections on the Essays," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, chapter 23, pages 685-689, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Alan P. Kirman, 1992. "Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 117-136, Spring.
    17. William A. Brock & Steven N. Durlauf, 1999. "A formal model of theory choice in science," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 14(1), pages 113-130.
    18. Partha Dasgupta & Paul A. David, 1987. "Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: George R. Feiwel (ed.), Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory, chapter 16, pages 519-542, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Debackere, Koenraad & Rappa, Michael A., 1994. "Institutional variations in problem choice and persistence among scientists in an emerging field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 425-441, July.
    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. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    2. Hussler Caroline & Pénin Julien, 2010. "The determinants of scientific research agenda: Why do academic inventors choose to perform patentable versus non-patentable research?," Working Papers of BETA 2010-06, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Paul David & Matthijs den Besten & Ralph Schroeder, "undated". "Will e-Science Be Open Science?," Discussion Papers 08-010, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Emilio Barucci & Marco Tolotti, 2012. "Identity, reputation and social interaction with an application to sequential voting," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 7(1), pages 79-98, May.
    5. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    6. Anita Milman & John M. Marston & Sarah E. Godsey & Jessica Bolson & Holly P. Jones & C. Susan Weiler, 2017. "Scholarly motivations to conduct interdisciplinary climate change research," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 239-250, June.
    7. Koen Frenken & Luis R. Izquierdo & Paolo Zeppini, 2012. "Recombinant Innovation and Endogenous Transitions," Working Papers 12-01, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Jan 2012.
    8. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Vargas, Juan, 2010. "Proliferation dynamics in new sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1034-1050, October.
    9. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    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. Nicolas Carayol & Jean-Michel Dalle, 2003. "The ‘problem of problem choice’: A model of sequential knowledge production within scientific communities cientific communities," Working Papers of BETA 2003-12, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. 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.
    3. Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Papagni, Erasmo, 2014. "“Little Science” and “Big Science”: The institution of “Open Science” as a cause of scientific and economic inequalities among countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 42-56.
    4. Chudnovsky, Daniel & López, Andrés & Rossi, Martín & Ubfal, Diego, 2006. "Evaluating a Program of Public Funding of Scientific Activity: A Case Study of FONCYT in Argentina," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2831, Inter-American Development Bank.
    5. Kealey, Terence & Ricketts, Martin, 2014. "Modelling science as a contribution good," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1014-1024.
    6. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni & Fabian Capitanio, 2008. "Effects of social interactions on scientists' productivity," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 29(3), pages 263-279, June.
    7. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    8. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    9. Bramoullé, Yann & Saint-Paul, Gilles, 2010. "Research cycles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(5), pages 1890-1920, September.
    10. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2004. "Academic Research, Social Interactions And Economic Growth," Working Papers 10_2004, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    11. Mario COCCIA, 2018. "Evolution of the economics of science in the Twenty Century," Journal of Economics Library, KSP Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 65-84, March.
    12. Goldfarb, Brent, 2008. "The effect of government contracting on academic research: Does the source of funding affect scientific output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 41-58, February.
    13. Scott Stern, 1999. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," NBER Working Papers 7410, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Maria Rosaria Carillo & Erasmo Papagni, 2006. "Social Rewards in Science and Economic Growth," Discussion Papers 10_2006, D.E.S. (Department of Economic Studies), University of Naples "Parthenope", Italy.
    15. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    16. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Thursby, Marie & Thursby, Jerry & Gupta-Mukherjee, Swasti, 2007. "Are there real effects of licensing on academic research? A life cycle view," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 577-598, August.
    18. Mario Coccia, 2006. "Economic and social studies of scientific research: nature and origins," CERIS Working Paper 200607, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    19. Benavente, José Miguel & Crespi, Gustavo & Figal Garone, Lucas & Maffioli, Alessandro, 2012. "The impact of national research funds: A regression discontinuity approach to the Chilean FONDECYT," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1461-1475.
    20. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    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:eee:streco:v:18:y:2007:i:2:p:167-191. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/525148 .

    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.