Open access publishing and innovation

No description supplie

How Do Scientists Define Openness? Exploring the Relationship Between Open Science Policies and Research Practice

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.This paper documents how biomedical researchers in the United Kingdom understand and enact the idea of “openness.” This is of particular interest to researchers and science policy worldwide in view of the recent adoption of pioneering policies on Open Science and Open Access by the UK government – policies whose impact on and implications for research practice are in need of urgent evaluation, so as to decide on their eventual implementation elsewhere. This study is based on 22 in-depth interviews with UK researchers in systems biology, synthetic biology and bioinformatics, which were conducted between September 2013 and February 2014. Through an analysis of the interview transcripts, we identify seven core themes that characterize researchers’ understanding of openness in science, and nine factors that shape the practice of openness in research. Our findings highlight the implications that Open Science policies can have for research processes and outcomes, and provide recommendations for enhancing their content, effectiveness and implementation.This research was funded by a UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Cross-Linking Grant ES/F028180/1 awarded to Castle, Dupré and Leonelli. The analysis of the interviews and the writing of the paper were also funded by the National Science Foundation award #1431263, which supported Levin’s research time, and the European Research Council grant award 335925, awarded to Leonelli

Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness

Most universities committed to the commercialization of academic research have established technology transfer offices (TTOs). Nonetheless, many researchers bypass these TTOs and take their inventions directly to the marketplace. While TTO bypassing has typically been portrayed as deliberate and undesirable behavior, we argue that it could be unintentional as many researchers may simply be unaware of the TTO’s existence. Taking an information-processing perspective and using data on 3250 researchers in 24 European universities, we examine researcher attributes associated with TTO awareness. Our evidence confirms that only a minority of researchers are aware of the existence of a TTO at their university. TTO awareness is greater among researchers who possess experience as entrepreneurs, closed many research and consulting contracts with industry partners, conduct research in medicine, engineering or life sciences, or occupy postdoctoral positions. Policy implications of these findings are discussed

University–industry collaboration: using meta-rules to overcome barriers to knowledge transfer

This is the final version of the article. Available from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this record.University–industry knowledge transfer is an important source wealth of creation for all partners; however, the practical management of this activity within universities is often hampered by procedural rigidity either through the absence of decision-making protocols to reconcile conflicting priorities or through the inconsistent implementation of existing policies. This is problematic, since it can impede operational effectiveness, prevent inter-organisational knowledge-creation and hamper organisational learning. This paper addresses this issue by adopting a cross-discipline approach and presenting meta-rules as a solution to aid organisational decision making. It is proposed that meta-rules can help resolve tensions arising from conflicting priorities between academics, knowledge transfer offices and industry and help facilitate strategic alignment of processes and policies within and between organisations. This research contributes to the growing debate on the strategic challenges of managing knowledge transfer and presents meta-rules as a practical solution to facilitate strategic alignment of internal and external stakeholder tensions. Meta-rules has previously only been applied in a computer intelligence context however, this research proves the efficacy of meta rules in a university–industry knowledge transfer context. This research also has practical implications for knowledge transfer office managers who can use meta-rules to help overcome resource limitations, conflicting priorities and goals of diverse internal and external stakeholders

Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective

This contribution explores how work on Triple Helix (TH) indicators has evolved. Over the past 15 years a body of literature has emerged that brings together a variety of approaches to capture, map or measure the dynamics of TH relationships. We apply bibliographic coupling and co-citation in combination with content analysis to develop a better understanding of this literature. We identify several clusters that can be aggregated to two broad streams of work—one ‘neo-evolutionary’, the other ‘neo-institutional’ in nature. We make this observation both for bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses which we take as indication of an emerging differentiation of the field. Our content analysis underlines this observation about the ‘two faces’ of the TH. We conclude this paper with a discussion of future opportunities for research. We see great potential in developing the application side of TH indicators

University patenting and technology commercialization: legal frameworks and the importance of local practice

The impact of national legislative frameworks on the higher education sector's contribution to technological innovation is heavily disputed. This paper argues that legislative frameworks may stimulate the development of local practices for the management and exploitation of intellectual property (IP), which in turn determine the level of academic patenting. We present case studies of two comparable universities in each of four selected European countries with different histories of national IP legislation. A within-country analysis shows that a wider range and earlier development of local IP management and exploitation practices are accompanied by higher levels of academic patenting, and that increasing similarity of IP practices is associated with decreasing differences in patenting outputs. A preliminary cross-country analysis reveals an expansion in and increasing similarity of practices for IP management and exploitation in countries with different national IP framework histories. We conclude that adopting Bayh-Dole-like legislation may trigger the development of local IP practices, which stimulate patenting. However, it is not always sufficient and definitely not always necessary. The study concludes with some policy recommendations.</p

University patenting and technology commercialization: legal frameworks and the importance of local practice

The impact of national legislative frameworks on the higher education sector's contribution to technological innovation is heavily disputed. This paper argues that legislative frameworks may stimulate the development of local practices for the management and exploitation of intellectual property (IP), which in turn determine the level of academic patenting. We present case studies of two comparable universities in each of four selected European countries with different histories of national IP legislation. A within-country analysis shows that a wider range and earlier development of local IP management and exploitation practices are accompanied by higher levels of academic patenting, and that increasing similarity of IP practices is associated with decreasing differences in patenting outputs. A preliminary cross-country analysis reveals an expansion in and increasing similarity of practices for IP management and exploitation in countries with different national IP framework histories. We conclude that adopting Bayh-Dole-like legislation may trigger the development of local IP practices, which stimulate patenting. However, it is not always sufficient and definitely not always necessary. The study concludes with some policy recommendations.</p