Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
This contribution examines various aspects of “openness” in research and seeks to gauge the degree to which contemporary “e-science” practices are congruent with “open science.” Norms and practices of openness are held to have been vital for the work of modern scientific communities. But concerns have arisen recently about the growth of strong technical and institutional restraints on access to research tools, data and information, in part because of the adverse implications these may have for the effective utilization of advanced digital infrastructures and information technologies in research collaborations. Our discussion first clarifies the conceptual differences between e-science and open science, and it then reports findings recent exploratory research on institutional policies and local practices affecting information access in U.K. e-science projects. In both of its parts the discussion underscores the point that it is unwarranted to presume that encouraging the development of e-science by providing enhanced technical infrastructures and tools alone will necessarily promotes global open science collaboration.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Allen, F. H. (2004). High-throughput crystallography: The challenge of publishing, storing and using the results. Crystallography Reviews, 10, 3–15. CrossRef
Arora, A., David, P. A., & Gambardella, A. (1998). Reputation and competence in publicly funded science: estimating the effects on research group productivity. Annales d’ Economie et de Statistique, 49/50, 163–198 (Numero Exceptionelle, J. Mairesse, Ed.).
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy, 23, 523–532. CrossRef
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1997). Public policy towards science: picking stars or spreading the wealth? Revue d’economie industrielle, 79, 63–75. CrossRef
Atkins, D. E., Droegmaier, K. K., Felman, S. I., Garcia-Molin, H., Klein, M.L., Messerschmitt, D.G., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure. Technical report, National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, DC: NSF.
Atkinson, M., DeRoure, D., Dunlop, A., Fox, G., Henderson, P., Hey, T., et al. (2005). Web service grids: An evolutionary approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 17(2), 377–390. CrossRef
Bacharach, M., Gambetta, D., et al. (1994). The economics of salience: A research proposal. Unpublished paper, Oxford Institute of Economics and Statistics.
Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Beaver, D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration, Part 2: Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite. Scientometrics, 1, 133–149. CrossRef
Ben-David, J. (1991). Scientific growth: Essays on the social organization and ethos of science. In G. Freudenthal (Ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Berman, F., & Brady, H. (2005). NSF SBE-CISE workshop on cyber-infrastructure and the social sciences. Final report, San Diego Supercomputing Centre.
Blau, J. (1973). Patterns of communication among theoretical high energy physicists. Sociometry, 37, 391–406. CrossRef
Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Callon, M. (1995). Four models for the dynamics of science. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch, (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 29–63). London: Sage Publications.
Carayol, N. (2003). The incentive properties of the Matthew effect in academic competition. Working Papers of BETA 2003-11 ULP, Strasbourg.
Carayol, N., & Dalle, J.-M. (2007). Sequential problem choice and the reward system in open science, BETA Working Papers of BETA 2003-12, ULP Strasbourg, 2003. Revised and published in Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 18(2), 167–191. CrossRef
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102. CrossRef
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72. CrossRef
Chang, V., Mills, H., & Newhouse, S. (2007, September10–13). From open source to long-term sustainability: Review of business models and case studies. In All Hands Meeting 2007, OMII-UK Workshop, Nottingham, UK.
Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cole, S. (1978). Scientific reward systems: A comparative analysis. In R.A. Jones (Ed.), Research in sociology of knowledge, sciences and art (pp. 167–190). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cole, S., & Cole, J. (1967). Scientific output and recognition. American Sociological Review, 32, 377–390. CrossRef
Coles, S. J., Frey, J. G., Hursthouse, M. B., Light, M., Carr, L., DeRoure, D., et al. (2005). The end-to-end crystallographic experiment in an e-science environment: From conception to publication. Proceedings of the Fourth UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, Nottingham, UK.
Coles, S. J., Frey, J. G., Hursthouse, M. B., Light, M. E., Meacham, K. E., Marvin, D. J., et al. (2005). ECSES – Examining crystal structures using “e-science”: A demonstrator employing web and grid services to enhance user participation in crystallographic experiments. Journal of Applied Crystallography, 38, 819–826. CrossRef
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study in productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714. CrossRef
Dalle, J.-M., David, P. A., Ghosh, R. A., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2005). Advancing economic research on the free and open source software mode of production. In M. Wynants & J. Cornelis (Eds.), How open will the future be? Social and cultural scenarios based on open standards and open-source software. Brussels: VUB Press. Preprint available at http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/04-03.html
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. Feiwel (Ed.), Chapter 16 in Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory (pp. 519–542). New York: New York University Press .
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521 CrossRef
David, P. (1994). Positive feedbacks and research productivity in science: Reopening another black box. In O. Grandstrand (Ed.), Economics and technology (pp. 65–85). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
David, P. A. (1996). Science reorganized? Post-modern visions of research and the curse of success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Research Funding, Ottawa.
David, P. A. (1998a). Common agency contracting and the emergence of “open science” institutions. American Economic Review, 88(2), 15–21.
David, P. A. (1998b). Communication norms and the collective cognitive performance of “invisible colleges”. In G. Barba Navaretti, P. Dasgupta, K.-G. Maler, & D. Siniscalco (Eds.), Creation and the transfer of knowledge: Institutions and incentives. New York: Springer.
David, P. A. (2002, December). Cooperation, creativity and closure in scientific research networks: Modelling the simpler dynamics of epistemic communities. SIEPR-CREEG Seminar Paper in Technology & Social Science. Paris: Bibliothque Albin Michel (Économie). Revision available at http:/siepr.stanford.edu/programs/SST_Seminars/David_All.pdf
David, P. A. (2003). The economic logic of “open science” and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information. In J. Esanu & P.F. Uhlir (Eds.), The role of scientific and technical data and information in the public domain: Proceedings of a symposium (pp. 19–34) . Washington, DC: Academy Press.
David, P. A. (2004). Can “open science” be protected from the evolving regime of intellectual property rights protections. Journal of Theoretical and Institutional Economics, 160, 1–26. Available at: http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/02-42.html.
David, P. A. (2006). Toward a cyberinfrastructure for enhanced scientific collaboration: providing its “soft” foundations may be the hardest part. In B. Kahin (Ed.), Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy (pp. 431–454) . Cambridge: MIT Press Preprint available at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/resources/publications/RR4.pdf
David, P. A. (2007). Innovation and Europe’s universities: Second thoughts about embracing the Bayh-Dole regime. In F. Malerba & S. Brusoni (Eds.), Perspectives on innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Preprint available at http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/04-27.html
David, P. A., den Besten, M., & Schroeder, R. (2006, December). How “open” is e-science? e-Science ’06: Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd International Conference on eScience and Grid Computing, Amsterdam, v. Iss, 33 ff. Available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4030972/4030973/04031006.pdf?isnumber=4030973âˆ=STD&arnumber=4031006&arnumber=4031006&arSt=33&ared=33&arAuthor=David%2C+P.A.%3B+den+Besten%2C+M.%3B+Schroeder%2C+R.
David, P. A., & Foray, D. (1995). Accessing and expanding the knowledge-base in science and technology. STI-Review , 16, 13–38.
David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2006). Property and the pursuit of knowledge: an introduction. Research Policy, 35(June–July) [Special Issue, Guest-edited by P. A. David & B. H. Hall].
David, P. A., Mowery, D. R., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1992). Analyzing the payoffs from basic research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2(4), 73–90. CrossRef
David, P. A., & Spence, M. (2003). Toward institutional infrastructures for e-science. Oxford Internet Institute Research Report 2, Oxford. Available at http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/project.cfm?id=26
David, P. A., & Spence, M. (2008). Designing institutional infrastructures for e-science, Ch. 5. In B. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Legal and policy framework for e-research: Realizing the potential. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.
David, P. A., & Uhlir, P. F. (2005, September 1–2). Creating the global information commons for e-science: Workshop rationale and plan. UNESCO, Paris. Available at http://www.codataweb.org/UNESCOmtg/workshopplan.html
David, P. A., & Uhlir, P. F. (2006, April 17). Creating global information commons for science: An international initiative of the committee on data for science and technology (CODATA). Unpublished prospectus..
De Roure, D. (2006, April 10–12). The OMII experience. Presentation to the OSSWatch Conference on Sustainability and Open Source, Said Business School, Oxford. Available at http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/events/2006-04-10-12/presentations/davidderoure.pdf
den Besten, M., & David, P. A. (2009, January). Data and information access in e-research: Results from a 2008 survey among UK e-science project participants. Report 18, Oxford Internet Institute. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1323812
den Besten, M., & David, P. A. (2008, September 11–13). Mapping e-science’s path in the collaboration space. Paper presented to the conference on Oxford e-Research Conference 2008. Retrieved from http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/microsites/eresearch08/
den Besten, M., David, P. A., & Schroeder, R. (2009). Will e-science be open science? In W. H. Dutton & P. Jeffreys (Eds.), World wide research.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fitzgerald, B. (Ed.). (2008). Legal and policy framework for e-research: Realizing the potential. Sydney: University of Sydney Press.
Fry, J., Schroeder, R., & den Besten, M. (2009). Open science in e-science: Contingency or policy? Journal of Documentation, 65(1), 6–32. CrossRef
Fuller, S. (1994). A guide to the philosophy and sociology of science for social psychology of science, Ch. 17. In W. Shadish & S. Fuller (Eds.), The social psychology of science. New York: The Guilford Press.
Gambardella, A. (1994). Science and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hey, T. (2005). e-Science and open access. Berlin 3 Open Access: Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. University of Southampton, UK.
Hinds, C., Jirotka, M., Rahman, M., D’Agostino, G., Meyer, C., Piper, T., et al. (2005). Ownership of intellectual property rights in medical data in collaborative computing environments. First International Conference on e-Social Science.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 557–598. CrossRef
Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Slack, R., Simpson, A., Coopmans, C., et al. (2005). Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: The eDiaMoND case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(4), 369–398. CrossRef
Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43. CrossRef
Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without Illusions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 1st/2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Leenaars, M. (2005). e-Infrastructures roadmap. e-Infrastructure Reflection Group Technical Report. Available at http://www.e-irg.org/roadmap/eIRG-roadmap.pdf
Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communities. 2nd ed. Leiden: DSWO Press, Universal Publishers: uPUBLIS.com. Available at http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm
Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton, LA: Universal Publishers.
Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2006). Measurement and explanation of the intensity of co-publication in scientific research: an analysis at the laboratory level, Ch. 10. In C. Antonelli, D. Foray, B. Hall, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), New frontiers in the economics of innovation and new technology: Essays in honour of Paul A. David. Cheltenham: Edward. Elgar.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. CrossRef
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. N. W. Storer (Ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Popper, K. R. (1959). Logic of scientific discovery, London: Hutchinson. MATH
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1953). Two dogmas of empiricism. From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1962). Carnap and logical truth. Logic and language: Studies dedicated to professor Rudolf Carnap on the occasion of his seventieth birthday (pp. 350–374) . Dordrecht: Reidel.
Quine, W. V. O. (Ed.). (1969). Epistemology naturalized. Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University PressSchroeder, R. (2007a). Rethinking science, technology and social change. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schroeder, R. (2007b). e-Research infrastructures and open science: Towards a new system of knowledge production? Prometheus, 25(1), 1–17. CrossRef
Schroeder, R. (2008). e-Sciences as research technologies: Reconfiguring disciplines, globalizing knowledge. Social Science Information, 47(2), 131–157. CrossRef
Stanford University (1996). Openness in research. Stanford University Research Policy Handbook, Ch. 2.6, Stanford, CA. Openness in research checklist at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/DoR/C-Res/ITARlist.html
Stephan, P. (1996). The Economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1262.
Taylor, J. (2001). Presentation at e-science meeting by the Director of the Research Councils, Office of Science and Technology, UK. Available at: http://www.e-science.clrc.ac.uk.
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. B. (1992). Ivory tower versus corporate lab: An empirical study of basic research and appropriability, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4146 (August).
Turner, L., & Mairesse, J. (2002). Explaining individual productivity differences in public research: How important are non-individual determinants? An econometric analysis of French Physiciists (1986–1997). Working Paper-Cahiers de la MSE 2002-66. Université Paris-I.
Uhlir, P. F., & Schroder, P. (2007). Open date for global science. Data Science Journal, 6. (Special Issue, Part 2: Analysis of Policy Issues), OD36–OD53.
van Raan, A. F. J. (Ed.). (1988). Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wikipedia (2008). Entry for “OASIS.” Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OASIS_(organization). Last accessed on November 14, 2008.
Ziman, J. M. (1994). Prometheus bound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Zuckerman, H., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Institutionalization and patterns of evaluation in science, reprinted in R. K. Merton. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 460–496). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
- Research in e-Science and Open Access to Data and Information
Matthijs den Besten
Paul A. David
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com