Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Cham: Springer.
Book
Google Scholar
Bilgram, V., Brem, A., & Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-centric innovations in new product development—Systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-tools. International Journal of Innovation Management,
12(3), 419–458.
Article
Google Scholar
Björk, B.-C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics,
7(4), 914–923.
Article
Google Scholar
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy,
33(4), 599–616.
Article
Google Scholar
Braun, A., Gomez, I., Mendez, A., & Schubert, A. (1992). International co-authorship patterns in physics and its subfields, 1981–1985. Scientometrics,
24(2), 181–200.
Article
Google Scholar
Bullinger, A. C., Neyer, A.-K., Rass, M., & Moeslein, K. M. (2010). Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
19(3), 290–303.
Article
Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003b). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44(3), 35–41.
Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Google Scholar
Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., & Kjær, J. S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy,
34(10), 1533–1549.
Article
Google Scholar
Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552.
Dahlander, L., Fredriksen, L., & Rullani, F. (2008). Online communities and open innovation: Governance and symbolic value creation. Industry and Innovation,
15(2), 115–123.
Article
Google Scholar
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy,
39(6), 600–709.
Article
Google Scholar
Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Darby, R., Goerner, B., Hyppoelae, J., Igo-Kemenes, P., Kahn, D., Lambert, S., Lengenfelder, A., Leonard, C., Mele, S., Polydoratou, P., Ross, D., Ruiz-Perez, S., Schimmer, R., Swaisland, M., & van der Stelt, W. (2010). First results of the SOAP project. Open access publishing in 2010, working paper. http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0506v1
De Roure, D., Goble, C., Aleksejevs, S., Bechhofer, S., & Bhagat, J. (2010). Towards open science: the myExperiment approach. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience,
22, 2335–2353.
Article
Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 532–550.
Google Scholar
Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. PS. Political Science and Politics,
31(4), 847–856.
Article
Google Scholar
Franke, N., von Hippel, E., & Schreier, M. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
23(4), 301–315.
Article
Google Scholar
Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy,
43(1), 1–20.
Article
Google Scholar
Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–9 July.
Gassmann, O., Kausch, C., & Enkel, E. (2010). Negative side effects of customer integration. International Journal of Technology Management,
50(1), 43–63.
Article
Google Scholar
Gassmann, O., & Keupp, M. M. (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,
4(3), 214–233.
Article
Google Scholar
Gentil-Beccot, A., & Mele, S. (2009). Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics. How a community stopped worrying about journals and learned to love repositories. http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.5418
Gowers, T., & Nielsen, M. (2009). Massively collaborative mathematics. Nature,
461, 879–881.
Article
Google Scholar
Grand, A., Wilkinson, C., Bultitude, K., & Winfield, A. F. T. (2012). Open Science: A New, “Trust Technology”? Science Communication,
34, 679–689.
Article
Google Scholar
Haeussler, C. (2011). Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study. Research Policy,
40(1), 105–122.
Article
Google Scholar
Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Inter-organizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal,
14(5), 371–385.
Article
Google Scholar
Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns 1960. Research Policy,
31(4), 477–492.
Article
Google Scholar
Hagström, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Herstatt, C., & Kalogerakis, K. (2005). How to use analogies for breakthrough innovations. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,
27(3), 418–436.
Google Scholar
Herzog, P. (2011). Open and closed innovation: Different cultures for different strategies. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
Book
Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (1995). Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change,
4(2), 401–424.
Article
Google Scholar
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy,
35(5), 715–728.
Article
Google Scholar
Howells, J. (2008). New directions in R&D: Current and prospective challenges. R&D Management,
38(3), 241–252.
Article
Google Scholar
Hunter, L., & Leahey, E. (2008). Collaborative research in sociology: Trends and contributing factors. The American Sociologist,
39(4), 290–306.
Article
Google Scholar
Jong, S., & Slavova, K. (2014). When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development. Research Policy,
43(4), 645–654.
Article
Google Scholar
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management,
12(1), 7–19.
Article
Google Scholar
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue ocean strategy. Harvard Business Review,
82(10), 76–84.
Google Scholar
Kodama, F. (1992). Technology fusion and the new Research-and-Development. Harvard Business Review,
70(4), 70–78.
Google Scholar
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., et al. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “Fuzzy Front End”. Research and Technology Management,
44(2), 46–55.
Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Lievrouw, L. A. (2010). Social media and the production of knowledge: A return to little science? Social Epistemology,
24, 219–237.
Article
Google Scholar
Luethje, C. (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field—An empirical study of sports-related consumers. Technovation,
23(9), 683–695.
Article
Google Scholar
Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. E. (2003). Determinants of scholarly productivity among male and female economists. Economic Inquiry,
41(4), 555–564.
Article
Google Scholar
McCain, K. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology and Human Values,
16, 491–516.
Article
Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Meyer, E. T., & Schroeder, R. (2013). Digital Transformations of Scholarship and Knowledge. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 307–327). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A., & Stern, S. (2009). Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of open science. International Journal of Industrial Organization,
27, 449–462.
Article
Google Scholar
Murray, F. (2006). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2010). Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organization Science,
21(2), 554–572.
Article
Google Scholar
Neylon, C., & Wu, S. (2009). Open science: Tools, approaches, and implications. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing,
14, 540–544.
Google Scholar
Nielsen, M. (2011). An informal definition of open science. The OpenScience Project. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=454
Nielsen, M. (2012). Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2002). Postnote—Peer review, (182), 1–4. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn182.pdf.
Pike, T. W. (2010). Collaboration networks and scientific impact among behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology,
21(2), 431–435.
Article
Google Scholar
Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Management,
36(3), 307–318.
Article
Google Scholar
Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy,
35(8), 1122–1130.
Article
Google Scholar
Piwowar, H. A. (2013). Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature,
493, 159.
Google Scholar
Powell, W. W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W., & Owen-Smith, J. (2005). Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology,
110, 1132–1205.
Article
Google Scholar
Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4745.
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., & Snee, H. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
368, 4039–4056.
Article
Google Scholar
Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., & Heath, C. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed”. Research Policy,
36(1), 134–154.
Article
Google Scholar
Rhoten, D., & Powell, W. W. (2007). The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
3, 345–373.
Article
Google Scholar
Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday,
19, 9.
Article
Google Scholar
Schildhauer, T. (2011). Open Innovation und digitale Kommunikation – Vier Thesen zum Aufbruch in neue und unbekannte Welten. In T. Schildhauer, N. Tropisch, & C. Busch (Eds.), Magie und Realität des Heldenprinzips heute (pp. 152–157). Münster: Verlagshaus Monsenstein und Vannerdat.
Google Scholar
Sieg, J. H., Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Managerial challenges in open innovation: A study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Management,
40(3), 281–291.
Article
Google Scholar
Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature,
34, 1199–1235.
Google Scholar
Tacke, O. (2010) Open science 2.0: how research and education can benefit from open innovation and web 2.0. 1. Symposium on Collective Intelligence (COLLIN 2010).
Thursby, M., Thursby, J., Haeussler, C., and Jiang, L. (2009) Do academic scientists freely share information? Not necessarily. Vox News 29 Nov. 2009.
Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and industrial biotechnology. Socio-Economic Review,
6(2), 283–311.
Article
Google Scholar
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,
29(6–7), 423–437.
Article
Google Scholar
van de Vrande, V., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Broadening the scope of open innovation: Past research, current research and future directions. International Journal of Technology Management,
52(3–4), 221–235.
Article
Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science,
32(7), 791–805.
Article
Google Scholar
von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2006). Free revealing and the private collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management,
36(3), 295–306.
Article
Google Scholar
Von Krogh, G., & von Hippel, E. (2003). Open source software: Introduction. Research Policy,
32(7), 1149–1157.
Article
Google Scholar
Waldrop, M. M. (2008) Science 2.0: Great New Tool, or Great Risk? Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk
West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry & Innovation,
15(2), 223–231.
Article
Google Scholar
Ziegler, N., Gassmann, O., & Friesike, S. (2014). Why do firms give away their patents for free? World Patent Information,
37, 19–25.
Article
Google Scholar