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.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10961-014-9375-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Timothy Gowers & Michael Nielsen, 2009. "Massively collaborative mathematics," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7266), pages 879-881, October.
    7. Oliver Gassmann & Marcus Matthias Keupp, 2007. "The internationalisation of research and development in Swiss and German Born Globals: survey and case study evidence," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(3), pages 214-233.
    8. Heather Piwowar, 2013. "Value all research products," Nature, Nature, vol. 493(7431), pages 159-159, January.
    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. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Hagedoorn, John, 2002. "Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 477-492, May.
    15. 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..
    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. Pisano, Gary, 2006. "Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1122-1130, October.
    18. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    19. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    20. 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.
    21. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    22. Satish Nambisan & Robert A. Baron, 2010. "Different Roles, Different Strokes: Organizing Virtual Customer Environments to Promote Two Types of Customer Contributions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 554-572, April.
    23. John Hagedoorn, 1993. "Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 371-385, July.
    24. Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Francesco Rullani, 2008. "Online Communities and Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 115-123.
    25. Cornelius Herstatt & Katharina Kalogerakis, 2005. "How To Use Analogies For Breakthrough Innovations," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(03), pages 331-347.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.
    28. von Krogh, Georg & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Special issue on open source software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1149-1157, July.
    29. 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.
    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. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    2. Laura Saraite Sariene & Carmen Caba Pérez & Antonio M López Hernández, 2020. "Expanding the actions of Open Government in higher education sector: From web transparency to Open Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Justyna Żywiołek & Joanna Rosak-Szyrocka & Muhammad Asghar Khan & Arshian Sharif, 2022. "Trust in Renewable Energy as Part of Energy-Saving Knowledge," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Yan Qi & Xin Zhang & Zhengyin Hu & Bin Xiang & Ran Zhang & Shu Fang, 2022. "Choosing the right collaboration partner for innovation: a framework based on topic analysis and link prediction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5519-5550, September.
    6. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    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. 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.
    10. Tindara Abbate & Fabrizio Cesaroni & Angelo Presenza, 2021. "Knowledge transfer from universities to low- and medium-technology industries: evidence from Italian winemakers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 989-1016, August.
    11. Wei Gao & Daojuan Wang, 2021. "Will Increasing Government Subsidies Promote Open Innovation? A Simulation Analysis of China’s Wind Power Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, December.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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).
    15. Selma Leticia Capinzaiki Ottonicar & Paloma Marin Arraiza & Fabiano Armellini, 2020. "Opening Science and Innovation: Opportunities for Emerging Economies," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(4), pages 95-111.
    16. 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.
    17. Petr Hájek & Jan Stejskal, 2018. "R&D Cooperation and Knowledge Spillover Effects for Sustainable Business Innovation in the Chemical Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Zhao, Qifeng & Luo, Qianfeng & Tao, Yunqing, 2023. "The power of paper: Scientific disclosure and firm innovation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    21. Regina Lenart-Gansiniec & Wojciech Czakon & Łukasz Sułkowski & Jasna Pocek, 2023. "Understanding crowdsourcing in science," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(8), pages 2797-2830, November.
    22. Alessandro Comai, 2020. "A new approach for detecting open innovation in patents: the designation of inventor," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1797-1822, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    4. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    5. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    6. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    8. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. 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.
    10. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    11. Baruffaldi, Stefano & Poege, Felix, 2020. "A Firm Scientific Community: Industry Participation and Knowledge Diffusion," IZA Discussion Papers 13419, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    13. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Francesco Campanella & Maria Rosaria Della Peruta & Stefano Bresciani & Luca Dezi, 2017. "Quadruple Helix and firms’ performance: an empirical verification in Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 267-284, April.
    16. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.
    17. Alexander Brem & Volker Bilgram & Adele Gutstein, 2021. "Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem (ed.), Emerging Issues and Trends in INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, chapter 2, pages 21-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Gabriele Santoro & Alberto Ferraris & Elisa Giacosa & Guido Giovando, 2018. "How SMEs Engage in Open Innovation: a Survey," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 561-574, June.
    19. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    20. Santoro, Gabriele & Bresciani, Stefano & Papa, Armando, 2020. "Collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 92.
    21. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2014. "Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 891-902.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open science; Research management; Science; Open innovation; O31; O32; O33;
    All these keywords.

    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.

    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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.