IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-03682-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Theresa Norn

    (Aarhus University
    Technical University of Denmark)

  • Laia Pujol Priego

    (Ramon Llull University)

  • Irene Ramos-Vielba

    (Aarhus University)

  • Thomas Kjeldager Ryan

    (Aarhus University)

  • Marie Louise Conradsen

    (Aarhus University)

  • Thomas Martin Durcan

    (The Neuro’s Early Drug Discovery Unit (EDDU), The Neuro, McGill University)

  • David G. Hulcoop

    (Open Targets, Wellcome Genome Campus
    European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus)

  • Aled Edwards

    (University of Toronto)

  • Susanne Müller

    (Johann Wolfgang Goethe University)

Abstract

Open Science Partnerships (OSPs) are gaining attention as alternatives to university–industry collaborations with restrictive IPR and knowledge sharing policies. OSPs have different expected outcomes and deploy varying means to reach them. Appreciating these differences is crucial to understanding their scientific and socio-economic impact, and yet these differences have never been systematically investigated. This exploratory study draws on qualitative case studies of five biomedical OSPs involving academic partners and pharmaceutical companies. It identifies key elements—purpose, activities and structure—that can be used to describe how OSPs are designed. We identify two key aspects of purpose—predominant intent and research aims—which we argue affect the activities and structure of an OSP. Based on these two aspects, we propose four ideal types of OSPs that are designed to provide a starting point for researchers who explore the nature and impact of OSPs and for practitioners who are developing OSPs and wish to ensure that they deploy appropriate means to meet the intended outcomes of their partnership.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Theresa Norn & Laia Pujol Priego & Irene Ramos-Vielba & Thomas Kjeldager Ryan & Marie Louise Conradsen & Thomas Martin Durcan & David G. Hulcoop & Aled Edwards & Susanne Müller, 2024. "Archetypes of Open Science Partnerships: connecting aims and means in open biomedical research collaborations," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03682-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03682-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-03682-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-03682-2?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. Emilio Domínguez Escrig & Francisco Fermín Mallén Broch & Rafael Lapiedra Alcamí & Ricardo Chiva Gómez, 2020. "How to enhance radical innovation? The importance of organizational design and generative learning," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 1101-1122, October.
    2. Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein, 2023. "Why managers still matter as applied organization (design) theory," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(1), pages 7-18, June.
    3. David Paul A., 2008. "The Historical Origins of 'Open Science': An Essay on Patronage, Reputation and Common Agency Contracting in the Scientific Revolution," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 106-106, October.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard M. Burton & Børge Obel, 2018. "The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Michael J. Fell, 2019. "The Economic Impacts of Open Science: A Rapid Evidence Assessment," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-30, July.
    9. Al-Atwi, Amer Ali & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Khan, Zaheer, 2021. "Micro-foundations of organizational design and sustainability: The mediating role of learning ambidexterity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    10. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    11. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Annina Lattu & Yuzhuo Cai, 2023. "Institutional logics in the open science practices of university–industry research collaboration," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(5), pages 905-916.
    3. Antonello Cammarano & Vincenzo Varriale & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2022. "Open and Crowd-Based Platforms: Impact on Organizational and Market Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Alejandra Manco, 2022. "A Landscape of Open Science Policies Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    5. 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).
    6. Zhao, Qifeng & Luo, Qianfeng & Tao, Yunqing, 2023. "The power of paper: Scientific disclosure and firm innovation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Teresa Gomez-Diaz & Tomas Recio, 2020. "A policy and legal Open Science framework: a proposal," Working Papers hal-02962399, HAL.
    9. Sunil Ramlall & Becky Melton, 2019. "The Role and Priorities of the Human Resource Management Function: Perspectives of HR Professionals, Line Managers, and Senior Executives," International Journal of Human Resource Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(2), pages 9-27, December.
    10. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2022. "Human resource policies and firm innovation: The moderating effects of economic and institutional context," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Joshua S Gans & Fiona Murray, 2023. "Markets for Scientific Attribution," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(3), pages 828-846.
    12. Turcan Nelly & Rusu Andrei & Cujba Rodica, 2019. "Study on the Mapping of Research Data in the Republic of Moldova in the Context of Open Science," International Journal of Advanced Statistics and IT&C for Economics and Life Sciences, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 11-22, June.
    13. Quentin Plantec & Benjamin Cabanes & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2021. "Market-Pull Or Research Push? Effects Of Research Orientations On University-Industry Collaborative Ph.D. Projects' Performances," Post-Print halshs-03190142, HAL.
    14. Leonel Prieto & Md Farid Talukder, 2023. "Resilient Agility: A Necessary Condition for Employee and Organizational Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    16. Kristina Stoiber & Kurt Matzler & Julia Hautz, 2023. "Ambidextrous structures paving the way for disruptive business models: a conceptual framework," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1439-1485, May.
    17. Nicolai J. Foss & Peter G. Klein, 2023. "Why Managers Matter matters: replies and reflections," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 12(1), pages 51-57, June.
    18. Arandjelović, Ognjen, 2023. "A Case for `Killer Robots': Why in the Long Run Martial AI May Be Good for Peace," SocArXiv 9kja8, Center for Open Science.
    19. Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina, 2024. "Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.

    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:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-03682-2. 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: https://www.nature.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.